Senate of Canada – canada.comhttp://o.canada.com
Canada's great, shareable storiesTue, 26 Sep 2017 19:46:53 +0000enhourly1http://wordpress.com/http://1.gravatar.com/blavatar/15edae77ebfa450ee5bb897103fdef31?s=96&d=http%3A%2F%2Fs2.wp.com%2Fi%2Fbuttonw-com.pngSenate of Canada – canada.comhttp://o.canada.com
Two senators have own way of reforming the red chamber: Step down earlyhttp://o.canada.com/news/national/two-senators-have-own-way-of-reforming-the-red-chamber-step-down-early
http://o.canada.com/news/national/two-senators-have-own-way-of-reforming-the-red-chamber-step-down-early#commentsMon, 28 Apr 2014 21:46:13 +0000http://o.canada.com/?p=436542]]>OTTAWA — Two Conservative senators appointed by Prime Minister Stephen Harper say that despite a ruling by Canada’s top court, they won’t break their political promise to leave the Senate before their mandatory retirement date.

Those two senators — Linda Frum and Vern White — are among the youngest in the chamber, and face a question others in their position may publicly confront in the coming days: Just because you can stay until age 75, should you?

Two more of the younger members of the chamber — government Senate leader Claude Carignan and deputy leader Yonah Martin — were less clear on the question, with Carignan saying he supports Senate reform “within the limits prescribed by law.”

The mandatory retirement age of 75 won’t be changing anytime soon. The Supreme Court of Canada last week said that limiting the terms of senators, which Prime Minister Stephen Harper had proposed, required a constitutional amendment. That ruling effectively closed the door on reforms in the near future because the government has no interest in re-opening the Constitution.

That court’s decision that Harper can’t easily set term limits has interesting implications. For example, Sen. Patrick Brazeau, though currently suspended, could potentially serve until 2049, if the red chamber lifts his suspension in 2015, which it could.

Carignan could have a 30-year term if he stays until his mandatory retirement in 2039 and Martin could serve 31 years if she leaves in 2040 at the age of 75.

However, the high-court decision doesn’t prevent senators from enacting self-imposed term limits.

“People should not stay for a period in excess of eight to 12 years,” said Frum, who was appointed in 2009 and can legally serve until 2038. “For any organization, that is an appropriate amount of time in which you can make a contribution (and) you can stay relevant.”

That doesn’t mean Frum won’t leave even sooner. “When the circumstances feel right, I’m certainly happy to pass the mantle,” she said Monday.

White said he committed to serve nine years in the Senate when he entered the red chamber in 2012, athough he could legally serve 22 years. “I’m not suggesting that Vern White at 60 … is no longer bringing value to the Senate,” he said. “I’m suggesting others would bring new ideas.”

Sen. Leo Housakos, who was appointed in 2009, argued that agreeing to a finite term is easier for some more than others.

“Most of the things I’ve done in my (life) have been eight- to 12-year cycles,” he said. “As long as I feel I have something to contribute to public discourse and as a senator, I will exercise that right.”

The Conservative government’s reluctance to explore constitutional means of reforming the unelected Senate leaves the onus on senators to push their own reforms. The government also has given no indication of the future of the Senate Reform Act, which the top court effectively said was unconstitutional. It is before the House of Commons, and Martin suggested the bill could yet be amended.

– With files from Peter O’Neil, Vancouver Sun

jpress@ottawacitizen.com

Twitter.com/jordan_press

What senators said on self-imposed term limits and Senate reform after the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision last week:

“I have always said that I fully support the proposed reform of the Senate. Given the Supreme Court’s decision last Friday, I will continue to work within the constitutional framework and endeavour to make the Senate more efficient and transparent within the limits prescribed by law.” — Government Senate leader Claude Carignan

“Maybe we can have … informal discussion between the Senate and (our) provinces about how they see this body changing and out of the those discussions, maybe there’s a common ground or a spark.” — Sen. Leo Housakos

“As long as you have the energy, the will and drive to do the job, that’s okay.” — Senate Liberal Pierrette Ringuette

“I’m not suggesting that Vern White at 60 … is no longer bringing value to the Senate. I’m suggesting others would bring new ideas.” — Sen. Vern White

“In 2008, the prime minister’s question was exactly, ‘Do you, in principle, support Senate reform?’ My answer was, ‘Yes.’ … I do, as I did when I answered the prime minister in 2008, support Senate reform, in ways that will benefit Canadians and strengthen our institution.” – Deputy government Senate leader Yonah Martin

“I support Senate reform and will follow whatever rules are in place. The Supreme Court of Canada spoke specifically about limiting the terms of senators and the reasons for the longer tenure. Their points are valid and accepted.” – Sen. David Wells

]]>http://o.canada.com/news/national/two-senators-have-own-way-of-reforming-the-red-chamber-step-down-early/feed1Senate disciplinejordanpresEthics watchdog rejects request to probe PMO actions in Mike Duffy audithttp://o.canada.com/news/ethics-watchdog-rejects-request-to-probe-pmo-actions-in-mike-duffy-audit
http://o.canada.com/news/ethics-watchdog-rejects-request-to-probe-pmo-actions-in-mike-duffy-audit#commentsTue, 17 Dec 2013 16:38:18 +0000http://o.canada.com/?p=370076]]>OTTAWA — The federal ethics commissioner has rejected a call from an independent watchdog group to investigate the actions of four former officials in the Prime Minister’s Office in Sen. Mike Duffy’s spending audit.

The watchdog group, Democracy Watch, had asked ethics commissioner Mary Dawson to review the roles of four people who used to work for Prime Minister Stephen Harper over allegations they worked to manipulate and interfere in the work of an independent audit team.

Those officials are all named in RCMP court documents looking at a $90,000 payment Duffy received to cover his expenses, and interventions by several high-ranking Conservative parliamentarians and operatives to have auditors from the firm Deloitte let Duffy off the hook for his questionable housing expenses. They are: former chief of staff Nigel Wright, former parliamentary affairs manager Patrick Rogers, former legal advisor Benjamin Perrin and Chris Woodcock, who was in charge of issues management for Harper’s office during Duffy’s audit.

According to Democracy Watch, Dawson told the group she couldn’t investigate because the RCMP is probing the $90,000 payment Wright made to Duffy to cover repayment of his expenses. In a release, the group said Dawson ruled “it would not be in the public interest for her to investigate now.”

Dawson had been investigating the payment after it became public in May, but suspended her investigation in June when the RCMP confirmed it was looking into the circumstances behind the payment.

“There is no likelihood that an inquiry by the ethics commissioner into the intervention by PMO staff into the Senate committee’s audit of Mike Duffy will negatively affect the RCMP’s investigation of Nigel Wright’s payment to Senator Duffy as all the key facts of the payment have been publicly disclosed,” the group wrote.

Democracy Watch received Dawson’s ruling on Friday, but only made it public Tuesday morning. The group had filed its complaint on Dec. 11 — two days before it received Dawson’s ruling.

Democracy Watch had also filed a complaint with the Senate ethics officer over the actions of Sen. Irving Gerstein, the Conservative’s chief fundraiser, who allegedly had a senior Deloitte partner named Michael Runia try to pry confidential information out of the audit team.

The Senate’s conflict of interest code forbids a senator from using their position to directly help the financial position of themselves or someone they know. Democracy Watch had argued Gerstein’s alleged interference in the audit — specifically allegations he tried to have it quashed — were a violation of the code because Duffy could have benefitted financially.

The group hadn’t heard from Senate ethics officer Lyse Ricard before a similar complaint was filed by a Liberal senator. Sen. Celine Hervieux-Payette submitted her complaint to Ricard last week.

]]>http://o.canada.com/news/ethics-watchdog-rejects-request-to-probe-pmo-actions-in-mike-duffy-audit/feed1?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????jordanpresSome senators not using computer security card at homehttp://o.canada.com/news/national/some-senators-not-using-computer-security-card-at-home
http://o.canada.com/news/national/some-senators-not-using-computer-security-card-at-home#commentsWed, 07 May 2014 16:55:00 +0000http://o.canada.com/?p=412647]]>OTTAWA — More than a dozen senators who have been given a secure way to log into the Senate’s network from home aren’t using it, according to an internal Senate report.

The Senate has provided about one-third of senators who have taxpayer funded Internet services at their homes with a SecurID card so they can securely access the red chamber’s internal network when remotely logging on.

The SecurID card is designed to ensure secure communication while online to prevent hackers from peering into confidential information. It is also used by the House of Commons staff.

Without the SecurID card, senators can’t log into the Senate’s network.

A confidential report to the Senate’s internal economy committee earlier this year stated that “29 senators have a SecurID card to access the Senate network, but only 15 senators use this service.”

The issue was discussed behind closed doors and could come up again when the internal economy committee meets Thursday morning.

Under the Senate’s telecommunications policy, each senator can expense one Internet account and two land lines outside the parliamentary precinct, which includes Parliament Hill and the surrounding buildings that house some senators’ offices.

According to the report, there are 42 senators with Internet accounts outside the parliamentary precinct. There are 45 with at least one telephone line: eight have two telephone lines outside the Parliament Hill area, “one of which is paid for out of their office budget.”

The names of the senators are not included in the report.

The policy, however, set no minimum or maximum amount that could be spent, leaving the Senate administration to deal with a mishmash of service providers and rates across the country. The Senate proposed capping the cost senators could expense for home Internet and telephone lines, with the new rules to come into effect June 30.

What happens when senators get home Internet and telephone access at taxpayers’ expense:

– Service providers won’t speak with Senate administration officials if the name doesn’t appear on the account: “This makes tasks such as rectifying simple billing discrepancies or helping senators with service issues impossible.”

– The Senate loses control over costs because any family member can make changes to service levels “not realizing that it may affect the cost of the service being paid by the Senate.”

– Even though the Senate is exempt from provincial sales tax, service providers add the tax because the Internet or phone package is a residential account and don’t recognize the tax exemption.

The cost:

$125: high-end montly cost Senate has paid in the past for home Internet services

$80: high-end monthly cost Senate has paid for telephone lines with extra features such as voicemail, call forwarding and long-distance plans

The new cap:

$85: Cap, per month, for home Internet (with a rented Wi-Fi router) for senators in the North

$65: Cap, per month, for home Internet (with a rented Wi-Fi router) for senators in the East and West

$55: Cap, per month, for home Internet (with a rented Wi-Fi router) for senators in Central Canada

$45: Cap, per month, for home telephone services for senators in all areas of the country

jpress@ottawacitizen.com

Twitter.com/jordan_press

]]>http://o.canada.com/news/national/some-senators-not-using-computer-security-card-at-home/feed2Senate disciplinejordanpresSenators scramble to repay even minor expenseshttp://o.canada.com/news/national/senators-scramble-to-repay-even-minor-expenses
http://o.canada.com/news/national/senators-scramble-to-repay-even-minor-expenses#respondMon, 05 May 2014 17:24:26 +0000http://o.canada.com/?p=439485]]>OTTAWA ­— Senators have been scrambling to repay any expense claims that could raise questions, apparently to get ahead of the federal auditor general as his teams slowly pore over the red chamber’s spending documents.

The Citizen has learned that some senators have started reviewing even minor expense claims to root out issues before Michael Ferguson’s teams arrive. Whenever issues have been flagged, senators have repaid the amounts in question.

In most cases, the amounts are small, such as a meal claim when food was already being provided at an event, according to sources with knowledge of the payments.

Yet Canadians aren’t allowed to know how much has been paid back: The Senate says the information is confidential and refuses to release the total amount of reimbursements since the federal auditor general began his sweeping probe of Senate spending.

Instead, the Senate said such information is found in the quarterly expense reports, which provide high-level overviews of the spending of individual senators.

Those reports, however, can be misleading because they show the net value of expense claims processed during a three-month period, not necessarily the actual spending during that timeframe.

For example, several senators whose reports show repaid expenses – including Marjory LeBreton, Michel Rivard, Michael MacDonald and Don Plett – said the dollar figures were refunds for cancelled flights, not for repayments of questionable expense claims.

As senators try to identify problems and pay back potentially problematic claims, they are also trying to update their spending rules yet again, hoping to ensure no one can, in future, use the excuse that the rules were unclear.

Details of those rule changes are being debated behind closed doors, but sources told the Citizen that the document would provide thorough guidelines for political staff filing claims and for the senators they serve, which would ensure no one could say they believed out-of-bounds travel was somehow within the rules.

The three-member executive of the Senate’s internal economy committee is reviewing the guidelines and rule changes, which, if approved, would be part of the second batch of amendments to the upper chamber’s spending rules in as many years. Speaker of the Senate Noel Kinsella, chairman of the committee, told senators that the executive plans to look at the rule changes Thursday.

On Thursday, Segal introduced what is likely to be his last bill as a member of the upper chamber. It would, if passed, create a national security and intelligence oversight committee made up of senators and MPs from across party lines.

Segal has repeatedly lobbied publicly for the federal government to create an intelligence oversight committee — and the government has repeatedly said no.

That committee would be similar to political oversight bodies in the United States and Britain. Canada is the only NATO country without a body whereby politicians can specifically review security matters, including access to secret materials.

“We don’t have any system like that here. There’s just no rationale for Canada to be an outlier,” Segal said.

The lack of such an oversight committee, Segal said, exposes CSIS and CSEC to “unsubstantiated criticism.”

Only ministers are able to receive security briefings, and watchdogs for CSIS and CSEC retroactively review whether the intelligence activities are within the law.

The committee wouldn’t overlap in duties with either watchdog, nor would it micromanage any agency, Segal said. Rather, it would look ahead to what the agencies have planned and be able to review operations annually for Parliament “and not just when there’s a crisis.”

Segal will leave another opening in the Tory ranks when he vacates his seat in the Senate in June 2014. The outspoken Tory, and former chief of staff to Brian Mulroney, takes up a new post July 1 as master of Massey College at the University of Toronto.

jpress@ottawacitizen.com

Twitter.com/jordan_press

What is Segal proposing?

– Committee would be made up of senators and MPs, receive security briefings and ask questions of Canada’s security agencies, including CSIS and CSEC;

– It gives the committee the ability to call witnesses and seek documents without the need for ministerial consent;

– Treasury Board would set the committee’s operating budget as a normal part of the estimate process;

– No senator or MP on the committee would earn extra money for time spent on the committee;

– The committee would have the right to meet in public or private;

– Would present an annual report to the prime minister; 45 days after receipt, it would be presented to Parliament;

– Committee members would be sworn to secrecy and bound by the Security of Information Act.

]]>http://o.canada.com/news/national/retiring-sen-hugh-segal-takes-last-crack-creating-security-oversight-committee/feed2JDT13 1028 SenatorScandal 5417jordanpresSenate expense claims getting second look from staffhttp://o.canada.com/news/national/senate-expense-claims-getting-second-look-from-staff
http://o.canada.com/news/national/senate-expense-claims-getting-second-look-from-staff#commentsThu, 01 May 2014 17:11:07 +0000http://o.canada.com/?p=438728]]>OTTAWA — A spending chill has become apparent in the Senate as finance officials clamp down on senators’ expense claims, including per diem claims of the sort that helped land suspended Sen. Mike Duffy in trouble.

Sen. Marjory LeBreton, the former government leader in the upper chamber, said Thursday that meal claims were suddenly being rejected by administration officials because food was being served at a committee meeting that senator was attending.

She also cited complaints from other senators that the expense rules weren’t being applied equally.

The complaint was an example of a crackdown on claims by Senate officials, just as the federal auditor general is probing Senate spending. It also comes as the upper chamber prepares to amend its administrative rules for the second time in as many years.

“The point is that there is no uniformity by Senate finance as to how the rule is applied — some per diems are approved and others are questioned or rejected based on the assumption that a senator was a meeting where a meal was provided and they actually ate it,” LeBreton told the Citizen.

“In short, Senate administration (is) part of the problem.”

The Senate’s administrative rules — the code that outlines how senators can use taxpayers’ money — is in the midst of a comprehensive review 10 years after being adopted. The rules have undergone some changes since 2004, including last year when the Senate removed a reference to the so-called “honour code” under which senators operated when submitting expense claims.

Now, making those claims has become more difficult.

Senate sources say that finance officials have started rejecting more and more requests, including in March when some senators tried to use up remaining funds in their office budgets for skids of soft drinks.

New rules on when senators can, or cannot, claim meals will be debated by the middle of June, the committee heard. Whenever they arrive, senators are likely to find the way they conduct their affairs changing again.

“Outside of here, this is how business is conducted. This is how you’re responsible to the corporation,” said Senate Liberal Larry Campbell.

“The senator has to take a look and say if a meal is supplied, a meal is supplied. That’s what happens in the real world and it should happen here.”

]]>http://o.canada.com/news/national/senate-expense-claims-getting-second-look-from-staff/feed30.000000 0.0000000.0000000.000000LEBRETON_18584163jordanpresAlberta’s elected senators defend the process; New Brunswick backs awayhttp://o.canada.com/news/national/albertas-elected-senators-defend-the-process-new-brunswick-backs-away
http://o.canada.com/news/national/albertas-elected-senators-defend-the-process-new-brunswick-backs-away#respondWed, 30 Apr 2014 20:28:52 +0000http://o.canada.com/?p=437892]]>OTTAWA — Alberta’s method of electing senators would pass any constitutional challenge and should be considered by other provinces, say two senators who entered the chamber using that process.

But New Brunswick, which had contemplated following that model, has postponed its own plan for Senate elections following a Supreme Court ruling.

Last Friday, the Supreme Court of Canada said the federal government couldn’t, on its own, create a framework for provinces to hold consultative Senate elections. The court said Senate reforms such as term limits and indirect elections needed widespread buy-in from provincial legislatures.

The high court, however, was silent on the constitutionality of Alberta’s election law.

“They’re not Senate elections, they’re consultative elections,” said Sen. Doug Black, a lawyer. “The prime minister of the day can pay attention to that or not.”

Alberta’s Senate nominee elections have seen five senators — Black, Scott Tannas, Betty Unger, Bert Brown and Stanley Waters — selected by prime ministers to sit in the upper chamber. Waters was appointed in 1990, but it took 17 years after his “election” before Brown took his seat, as Liberal prime ministers Jean Chretien and Paul Martin appointed four other Albertans between 1998 and 2004 when seats came open.

“Two prime ministers were happy to ignore … this election activity. That to me is an entirely different process that involves nobody — by convention or tradition or law — to heed it,” said Tannas.

Both Black and Tannas continue to push other provinces to follow Alberta’s lead, but whether the idea of consultative elections will spread was unclear Wednesday. Alberta continued to pore over the high court’s legal opinion, and New Brunswick announced it was putting a hold on its plans for Senate elections.

New Brunswick Premier David Alward introduced Senate election legislation in 2012, but had put it in abeyance until the Supreme Court decision. Alward told reporters in Fredericton Wednesday that while he still wanted to see the province elect Senate nominees, legislation to enshrine that won’t be passed before a provincial election in September.

The upper chamber is wrestling with how it can reform within the rules provided by the Supreme Court. The high court concluded that popular elections to select Senate nominees would give the Senate the legitimacy to oppose legislation from the Commons. That, it said, was a fundamental change to the institution that required opening up the Constitution – an option few politicians care to pursue.

“It is possible to still in some way involve the public without the need for constitutional amendment. For that to happen, it would have to occur in a less formal way than electing senators,” said Sen. John Wallace, a Conservative from New Brunswick who spoke Tuesday in the Senate on the reform issue.

“Rather than just walk away from the Supreme Court decision and accept things the way they are, it should receive some sober second thought.”

Harper will have 16 Senate seats to fill by the time of the scheduled 2015 election (there are currently nine vacant seats, and seven more will open up as two Senate Liberals and five Conservatives retire by October 2015).

Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau has advocated creating an expert panel to make recommendations for Senate appointments that the prime minister would then consider, akin to how Supreme Court justices are nominated.

NDP Leader Thomas Mulcair argued that any change, including Trudeau’s proposal, in how senators are selected requires constitutional change, and says Alberta’s election law is unconstitutional. “That’s exactly what the Supreme Court has ruled is not allowed, in so many words,” he said.

– With files from the Canadian Press

jpress@ottawacitizen.com

Twitter.com/jordan_press

]]>http://o.canada.com/news/national/albertas-elected-senators-defend-the-process-new-brunswick-backs-away/feed0????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????jordanpresHarper urges provinces to push forward on Senate reformhttp://o.canada.com/news/national/harper-urges-provinces-to-push-forward-on-senate-reform
http://o.canada.com/news/national/harper-urges-provinces-to-push-forward-on-senate-reform#commentsTue, 29 Apr 2014 20:44:06 +0000http://o.canada.com/?p=437248]]>OTTAWA — Prime Minister Stephen Harper has invited the provinces to push forward Senate reform, telling them that they should come to some agreement quickly on how to change the upper chamber.

Failing that, he said, they should agree to abolish the place.

“If the provinces believe, as I do, there should be reform, they should bring forward those reforms forthwith. If they don’t believe that, they should bring forward amendments to abolish the Senate,” Harper told the Commons Tuesday.

Harper made the challenge days after saying his government was giving up on Senate reform given the restrictive path the Supreme Court of Canada had set for making changes. It also came after NDP Leader Thomas Mulcair charged that Harper was making an about-face on his position to bring about major changes to the upper chamber.

The roadmap the top court laid out last Friday requires the agreement of the seven provinces with half the country’s population — the “7/50” rule — to establish term limits for senators or create a national framework for consultative elections. The court said unanimous consent from all provinces was needed to abolish the Senate.

That decision eliminated Harper’s hope for an easy path to amend the scandal-plagued chamber.

Harper said again Tuesday that there was no national interest in engaging in constitutional negotiations.

“The Supreme Court has ruled in its wisdom that the federal government can neither abolish the Senate, nor can the federal government actually propose reforms, significant reforms, to the Senate,” Harper said. “That is all now, according to the Supreme Court of Canada, within the purview of the provinces. So my position … has not changed.”

Provinces have given no indication that they’re ready to run with Senate reform. Saskatchewan Premier Brad Wall, one of the most outspoken premiers on Senate reform, told reporters last week there was no consensus nor interest in going ahead with Senate reform.

“Not very long ago in the federation … the country would have been very close to having met a 7/50 threshold,” Wall said Friday. “It certainly was a national issue. It remains an issue that’s current, but it’s not a top priority.”

The Supreme Court decision was not surprising to observers inside and outside of the Senate, many of whom expected the court to find the government’s proposed Senate Reform Act unconstitutional. That has left senators to pick up the pieces of Senate reform, debating changes to the upper chamber that can be accomplished without touching the Constitution.

“We have to say, all right, it’s now up to us,” Senate Liberal leader James Cowan told the Citizen after the court’s decision. “We have a responsibility to make our institution the best it can be.”

Prime Minister Stephen Harper responds to a question during question period in the House of Commons on Parliament Hill in Ottawa on Tuesday, April 29, 2014. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Sean Kilpatrick

Some senators have already said they’ll take action, though at a personal level. Conservative senators Vern White and Linda Frum told the Citizen they don’t plan to serve until the age of 75, even though that is the current allowed retirement age. Rather, they indicated they are prepared to step aside at the right time in their term so new blood can join the upper chamber.

“People should not stay for a period in excess of eight to 12 years,” said Frum, who was appointed in 2009 and can legally serve until 2038. “For any organization, that is an appropriate amount of time in which you can make a contribution (and) you can stay relevant.”

White said this week that he committed to serve nine years in the Senate when he entered the red chamber in 2012, although he could legally serve 22 years. “I’m not suggesting that Vern White at 60 … is no longer bringing value to the Senate,” he said. “I’m suggesting others would bring new ideas.”

– With files from Joe Couture, Saskatoon StarPhoenix

]]>http://o.canada.com/news/national/harper-urges-provinces-to-push-forward-on-senate-reform/feed10.000000 0.0000000.0000000.000000COMMONS_20130501_26767611-croppedjordanpresPrime Minister Stephen Harper Supreme Court’s opinion on Senate shows status quo is with us foreverhttp://o.canada.com/news/national/supreme-courts-opinion-on-senate-shows-status-quo-is-with-us-forever
http://o.canada.com/news/national/supreme-courts-opinion-on-senate-shows-status-quo-is-with-us-forever#commentsSat, 26 Apr 2014 00:10:35 +0000http://o.canada.com/?p=435714]]>The first words of the American constitution are “We the people.” The first words of the Canadian Constitution might as well be “can’t be done.” Because it can’t, and if it ever could the Supreme Court has now seen to it that it won’t.

No other federation is quite so hamstrung, because no other federation has given over the power to amend its constitution quite so holus-bolus to its constituent states. Australians can amend their constitution by referendum, the American constitution provides for state ratifying conventions as an alternative to the legislatures, but in Canada nothing moves unless the premiers nod their heads. And, over a widening swath of the Constitution, that means all of the premiers.

Until now that was limited to what was spelled out in the Constitution’s text. Under Part V, Section 41 of the Constitution Act 1982, a resolution of “the Senate and House of Commons” and of “the legislative assembly of each province” is required for amendments to a short list of items including the office of the Queen, the use of English and French, the “composition of the Supreme Court of Canada” and Part V itself.

The Queen signs Canada’s constitutional proclamation in Ottawa on April 17, 1982 as Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau looks on. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Ron Poling

The section, note, does not mention the Senate of Canada. On the other hand, Section 42 of the same part specifically mentions the “powers of the Senate” and the “number of members” to which each province is entitled as coming under the general amending formula (seven provinces with 50 per cent of the population). In referring the question to the Supreme Court for its opinion, the federal government had argued this meant the Senate could be abolished under the general amending formula.

Technically this would not run afoul of s. 41, since the Senate’s approval is not actually required to amend the Constitution: Elsewhere it is specified that if the Senate fails to pass such a resolution in 180 days, the Commons has only to repass it to send it on. But even if you don’t buy that: Couldn’t the Senate be effectively done away with, as the government also asked the Court, under s. 42 — that is by “abolishing the powers of the Senate and eliminating the representation of provinces”? Section 42 just says powers and numbers. It doesn’t say which powers or numbers.

Nothing doing, said the Court. Whatever the Constitution might say or not say, such a change would fundamentally alter our “constitutional architecture,” a delicate construct the Supreme Court conjured, as it so often does, out of the air. While s. 42 allows “significant changes to the powers of the Senate and the number of Senators,” it wrote, “it is outside the scope of s. 42 to altogether strip the Senate of its powers and reduce the number of Senators to zero.”

Very well. Suppose Parliament plus seven-and-fifty voted to reduce the Senate’s numbers to one, and its powers to singing the national anthem. Would that leave the Court’s constitutional architecture intact? How far may the powers and numbers of the Senate be diminished, before the Supreme Court declares some Confederation bargain or other has been violated? Who knows? On the evidence, it would appear to depend on the Court’s mood.

This is no idle matter, because on the other questions before it the Court showed the same distressing tendency to freelance. Could Parliament, for example, acting under its Section 44 power to “exclusively” amend “the Senate and House of Commons,” provide for Senators to be appointed only after non-binding consultative elections? Say it again: non-binding — the Governor General (the Prime Minister, really) could still refuse their advice.

Nuh-uh, said the Court. That would amount to a change to the “method of selecting” senators, and thus come under the general amending formula. That is, it would not change anything in some narrow “textual” sense, but again, there’s “the architecture” to consider. The Fathers of Confederation wanted senators to be appointed, and therefore weak; make them elected, and they would be strong. To the government’s point that the elections were purely consultative, the Court simply said “my eye.”

I paraphrase. In fact what it said was: “Federal legislation providing for the consultative election of Senators would have the practical effect of … endowing them with a popular mandate.” It would give the Senate “democratic legitimacy.” Okay: Suppose the consultation were not formalized in legislation. Suppose the prime minister simply followed a policy of appointing senators who had been elected by some process or other. Wouldn’t that imply the same dangerous “legitimacy”? Or suppose he merely consulted widely: How widely could he consult before it damaged the Constitution’s interior decor? Once freed from the confines of what’s actually in the Constitution, these become live issues.

And so on. Parliament can’t impose fixed terms on senators’ appointments, either, the Court ruled, out of the same concern for the constitutional furniture: Unless appointed for life (75, actually, but who’s counting?) their independence would be reduced, thus somehow engaging “the interests of the provinces.” On the other hand, the Court waved through Parliament’s right to eliminate the current wealth and property requirements for senators (outside Quebec). These were, we must assume, not part of the Senate’s original purpose, to which the Court is otherwise so devoted. Oh? Then why were they put in?

We are left to conclude that virtually any change to the Senate is impossible without the consent of at least seven and possibly all of the provinces. In principle this is to protect the interests of both levels of government, but the “practical effect,” to borrow a phrase, is to make Senate reform impossible, and Senate abolition unthinkable.

And so the status quo — a widely reviled patronage house that, contrary to theories of the self-restraint imposed by its current illegitimacy, has intervened decisively on such trifles as abortion, free trade and global warming — is with us forever. The 1982 Constitution set the lock, and the Supreme Court has just turned the key.

Postmedia News

]]>http://o.canada.com/news/national/supreme-courts-opinion-on-senate-shows-status-quo-is-with-us-forever/feed30.000000 0.0000000.0000000.000000Supreme CourtandrewcoynePierre TrudeauHarper ‘disappointed’ with Supreme Court ruling that he can’t reform Senate without provincial agreementhttp://o.canada.com/news/national/alert-federal-government-cant-make-senate-changes-on-its-own-top-court-rules
http://o.canada.com/news/national/alert-federal-government-cant-make-senate-changes-on-its-own-top-court-rules#commentsThu, 24 Apr 2014 19:05:18 +0000http://o.canada.com/?p=434481]]>OTTAWA — Prime Minister Stephen Harper is telling Canadians that his decade-old promise of Senate reform is dead “for the time being”— blaming the country’s top court for the mess and suggesting it’s now up to provincial governments to find a “consensus.”

The Supreme Court of Canada’s conclusion Friday that the federal government cannot make major changes to the upper chamber — such as indirect elections and term limits for senators — without any provincial consent was a major blow for the Conservatives, who had firmly argued they could enact some reforms unilaterally.

Harper’s critics turned the ruling against the prime minister, with suggestions that the government had never intended to reform the Senate and had simply used the issue to appeal to its western base.

With the top court decision, the Conservatives are left with a Senate reform roadmap that requires Harper, if he wishes to change the upper chamber, to sit down with premiers and engage in protracted constitutional negotiations that the prime minister, who hopes to be re-elected next year, is wary of.

Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne said she was ready to begin such talks. NDP Leader Thomas Mulcair urged the prime minister to open negotiations. However, Harper made it clear he won’t be inviting the premiers to the capital any time soon.

“The Supreme Court essentially said today that for any important Senate reform of any kind, as well as abolition, these are only decisions that provinces can take,” Harper said at an event in Kitchener, Ont.

“There is no consensus among the provinces on reform, no consensus on abolition, and no desire of anyone to reopen the Constitution and have a bunch of constitutional negotiations.”

The court’s decision carries some potentially significant political implications as the Conservatives gear up for the next election.

The prime minister has lost the ability to proclaim that he has enacted major reforms to bring democracy to the upper chamber.

Moreover, after putting Senate appointments on hold since the fall of 2012, Harper faces the prospect of having to fill vacancies without the political safety net of consultative elections, which he had hoped the court would endorse. By the time of the next federal election, there will be 17 Senate vacancies.

In its landmark decision, the high court said the federal government needs the agreement of seven provinces with half the country’s population to set senatorial term limits or allow for elections for Senate nominees.

To abolish the Senate altogether, the court held that the unanimous agreement of all provinces is needed – and even the agreement of the Senate itself.

The legal opinion was signed by every member of the top court.

“Essentially this is a decision for the status quo, a status quo that is supported by virtually no Canadian,” Harper said. “We’re essentially stuck with the status quo for the time being.

“Significant reform and abolition are off the table. I think it’s a decision that I’m disappointed with. But I think it’s a decision that the vast majority of Canadians will be very disappointed with. But obviously we will respect that decision.”

The government also signalled that it won’t be pushing for a national referendum on the future of the Senate, the results of which wouldn’t be binding on governments. Democratic Reform Minister Pierre Poilievre told reporters in Ottawa the Conservatives had “no plans for that at this time,” despite calls from two high-profile Conservative MPs, including Maxime Bernier, a junior cabinet minister from Quebec, who said a referendum was required.

Instead, Poilievre suggested the government would look at “other ideas” to “minimize the cost and maximize the accountability of the upper chamber.”

In its decision, the court made it clear it was not casting judgment on whether reform is needed — only on how the reforms, or abolition, must be accomplished under the Constitution. Reforms of any kind, the court said, “is an issue for Canadians and their legislatures.”

“All along, (Harper) knew that he would have to sit down with the provinces, which he didn’t want to do,” said Prince Edward Island Premier Robert Ghiz. “The rules have been drawn. If Senate reform or abolishing the Senate is a priority for you, this is what you must do.”

Saskatchewan Premier Brad Wall called the court decision “disappointing” and questioned whether the provinces could ever come to any kind of consensus on the future of the Senate.

“I do not see how even a national referendum would effect change,” Wall said in a statement.

“Short of successive prime ministers refusing to appoint senators until the chamber is empty, it would appear that Canada is indeed stuck with an anachronistic, unelected, unaccountable Senate.”

Wynne, however, said that her province was ready to begin constitutional talks to change the upper chamber. “Ontario is ready to participate if the federal government decides to lead collaborative pan-Canadian discussions about Senate reform,” she said.

Mulcair urged Harper not to “give up.

“If he actually ever believed in Senate reform, he should keep trying,” Mulcair told reporters at an event in Kingston, Ont.

Liberal MP Stephane Dion — his party’s critic on Senate reform — said Harper should not call a first ministers’ constitutional conference or hold a referendum on the issue because “there is no appetite among Canadians to reopen the Constitution, to start negotiations.”

The Conservative government introduced its Senate Reform Act with much fanfare in June 2011, shortly after Harper won a majority government. Months later, after barely being debated, the bill was quietly put on the back burner. It was sent to the Supreme Court for a ruling in February 2013.

The issue went to the Supreme Court against the backdrop of a Senate spending scandal that has now led the RCMP to lay fraud and breach of trust charges against Sen. Patrick Brazeau and former Liberal senator Mac Harb. The Senate also suspended Brazeau, Pamela Wallin and Mike Duffy without pay.

That scandal stirred renewed calls for reforms to the unelected upper chamber, and has given the New Democrats the fuel to wage a campaign for outright Senateabolition.

The NDP has long proposed the abolition of the Senate. NDP democratic reform critic Craig Scott acknowledged this will now be more difficult to achieve because it requires the consent of all provinces. But he said abolition, if the NDP ever took office, remains the party’s “desirable goal.”

1. Can Parliament unilaterally implement a framework for consultative elections for appointments to the Senate? The Court said: No.

2. Can Parliament unilaterally set fixed terms for senators? The court said: No.

3. Can Parliament unilaterally remove from the Constitution the requirement that senators must own land worth $4,000 in the province they represent and have a net worth of $4,000? The court said:Yes, but it needs the agreement of Quebec to do so for Quebec senators.

4. What degree of provincial consent is required to abolish the Senate? The court said: Unanimous consent of all provinces is required to abolish the Senate.

]]>http://o.canada.com/news/national/alert-federal-government-cant-make-senate-changes-on-its-own-top-court-rules/feed3thonejordanpresThe Senate and the Supremes: What the top court saidhttp://o.canada.com/news/the-senate-and-the-supremes-what-the-top-court-said
http://o.canada.com/news/the-senate-and-the-supremes-what-the-top-court-said#respondFri, 25 Apr 2014 14:23:40 +0000http://o.canada.com/?p=435259]]>From the Supreme Court’s introduction to its decision on Senate reform Friday:

“The Senate is one of Canada’s foundational political institutions. It lies at the heart of the agreements that gave birth to the Canadian federation. Yet from its first sittings, voices have called for reform of the Senate and even, on occasion, for its outright abolition.

“The Government of Canada now asks this Court, under s. 53 of the Supreme Court Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. S-26, to answer essentially four questions: (1) Can Parliament unilaterally implement a framework for consultative elections for appointments to the Senate? (2) Can Parliament unilaterally set fixed terms for Senators? (3) Can Parliament unilaterally remove from the Constitution Act, 1867 the requirement that Senators must own land worth $4,000 in the province for which they are appointed and have a net worth of at least $4,000? and (4) What degree of provincial consent is required to abolish the Senate?

“We conclude that Parliament cannot unilaterally achieve most of the proposed changes to the Senate, which require the consent of at least seven provinces representing, in the aggregate, at least half of the population of all the provinces. We further conclude that abolition of the Senate requires the consent of all of the provinces. Abolition of the Senate would fundamentally change Canada’s constitutional structure, including its procedures for amending the Constitution, and can only be done with unanimous federal-provincial consensus.

“This said, our conclusions are tied to the specific questions that were put before the Court. Our role is not to speculate on the full range of possible changes to the Senate. Rather, the proper role of this Court in the ongoing debate regarding the future of the Senate is to determine the legal framework for implementing the specific changes contemplated in the questions put to us. The desirability of these changes is not a question for the Court; it is an issue for Canadians and their legislatures.

]]>http://o.canada.com/news/the-senate-and-the-supremes-what-the-top-court-said/feed0CANADA-POLITICS-SENATE-COURT-JUSTICE-FILESjordanpresWhat they’re saying about the Senate and the Supreme Courthttp://o.canada.com/news/national/what-theyre-saying-about-the-senate-and-the-supreme-court
http://o.canada.com/news/national/what-theyre-saying-about-the-senate-and-the-supreme-court#respondFri, 25 Apr 2014 16:48:19 +0000http://o.canada.com/?p=435347]]>Here’s some of the reaction to the Supreme Court’s landmark legal opinion on Senate reform:

“Significant reform and abolition are off the table. I think it’s a decision that I’m disappointed with. But I think it’s a decision that the vast majority of Canadians will be very disappointed with. But obviously we will respect that decision.” – Prime Minister Stephen Harper

“Our goal is to minimize the cost and maximize the accountability of the institution without opening the Constitution.” – Democratic Reform Minister Pierre Poilievre

“The whole political system in Canada … was in danger of being paralyzed as we see in our neighbours to the south too often. We cannot afford that. It was irresponsible for Mr. Harper to do it … There is no appetite among Canadians to reopen the Constitution.” – Liberal critic for intergovernmental affairs Stephane Dion

“(Prime Minister Stephen Harper) has tried to get the best of both worlds, pretending he is a reformer, knowing at some point that it was going to be found to be unconstitutional. That’s what happened.” – NDP democratic and parliamentary reform critic Craig Scott

“This year marks the 150th anniversary of the Quebec Conference, where the Senate as we know it was framed … Throughout a century-and-a-half, the Senate has been an important national institution in the promotion of freedom and the Supreme Court of Canada has confirmed that the Senate continues to be an integral element of our system of governance.” – Speaker of the Senate Noël Kinsella

“There has to be a mature and serious reflection among senators themselves on the basis of the substance of the decision. This seems to be a golden opportunity to … come to some realistic conclusion about how to reform the institution within the parameters that are there.” – Sen. Serge Joyal, who was an intervenor in the Supreme Court case

“I am hopeful that Canada’s provincial legislatures will follow Alberta’s lead in allowing their citizens a voice in who represents them in the Senate, even in the absence of formal federal legislation recognizing those results. I have yet to meet an Albertan who does not support Senate nominee elections.” – Sen. Doug Black, Conservative from Alberta

“Ontario needs to be a part of any decision about changing the character of the Senate. We believe that the Senate plays a valuable role as a chamber of sober second thought, and that any changes made to it must be consistent with this function.” – Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne

“While B.C. did not feel that unanimity was necessary for Senate abolition, we are happy with this decision, as it upholds our belief that British Columbians should be able to participate in the decision-making process. We do recognize that unanimity will make it more difficult to abolish the Senate.” – British Columbia Justice Minister Suzanne Anton

“All along he (Harper) knew that he would have to sit down with the provinces, which he didn’t want to do … The rules have been drawn. If Senate form or abolishing the Senate is a priority for you, this is what you must do.” – Prince Edward Island Premier Robert Ghiz

“Our successful experiences with Senate nominee elections over two decades have resulted in five of these nominees being appointed to the Senate. We continue to seek a democratic foundation to the Senate and think other provinces should do the same.” – Alberta Intergovernmental Affairs Minister Cal Dallas

“This ruling settles once and for all the matter of the role of the Senate as a means to ensure protection and representation for official language minorities. Clearly, no Senate reform can proceed without consideration of the importance of the Red Chamber for the representation of those minorities.” – Marie-France Kenny, president of the Federation des Communautes Francophones et Acadienne

“There’s no question that unanimous consent is a high bar for abolition, but do not underestimate how sick Canadians are of this unelected group of landowners pilfering the public purse.” – Canadian Taxpayers Federation federal director Gregory Thomas

“We know that there is no consensus among the provinces on reform, no consensus on abolition, and no desire of anyone to reopen the Constitution and have a bunch of constitutional negotiations … So essentially this is a decision for the status quo, a status quo that is supported by virtually no Canadian.” – Prime Minister Stephen Harper

]]>http://o.canada.com/news/national/what-theyre-saying-about-the-senate-and-the-supreme-court/feed0JDT13 1105 SenateScanadal 3437jordanpresA short history of the Senate and the Supreme Courthttp://o.canada.com/news/national/a-short-history-of-the-senate-and-the-supreme-court
http://o.canada.com/news/national/a-short-history-of-the-senate-and-the-supreme-court#respondThu, 24 Apr 2014 18:16:09 +0000http://o.canada.com/?p=434482]]>OTTAWA — The Supreme Court of Canada’s ruling on how the Senate can be reformed or abolished, expected this morning, is a watershed moment in the Conservative government’s eight-year quest to reform the upper chamber. How did they (and the rest of us) get here?

2011

June 21: The Conservative government introduces the Senate Reform Act. The legislation would set nine-year term limits for anyone appointed to the Senate after Oct. 14, 2008, and create a voluntary framework for provinces wishing to hold Senate nominee elections.

2012

April 30: Quebec challenges the constitutionality of the Senate Reform Act at the Quebec Court of Appeal.

Sept. 7: Prime Minister Stephen Harper appoints five senators, all Conservatives. Harper’s office notes that all five appointees have pledged support for the Senate Reform Act.

Dec. 4: An Ottawa Citizen report questions living expense claims of $33,413 filed by Sen. Mike Duffy for a secondary home in Ottawa, where he was a longtime resident before joining the Senate to represent Prince Edward Island.

2013

Feb. 1: The Conservatives ask the Supreme Court of Canada to rule on the constitutionality of the Senate Reform Act.

May 15: After Duffy says he has repaid housing claims now estimated at about $90,000, the Prime Minister’s Office says chief of staff Nigel Wright used his personal funds to cover the repayment. The money was part of a secret deal that saw a Senate committee go easy on Duffy in an audit report.

July 15: Harper bars senators from being in cabinet.

July 31: The federal government files its arguments on Senate reform with the Supreme Court. It argues it doesn’t need to open up the Constitution to reform the Senate, and that Parliament alone has the power to make certain changes – without the need to consult provincial governments.

Aug. 30: Alberta and Saskatchewan side with the federal government on the method by which the Senate can be abolished. British Columbia takes the same position one week later.

Jan. 29: Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau removes Liberal senators from the party’s caucus. He indicates he will seek changes to the party constitution to prevent the party from having senators at all.

Feb. 4: The RCMP lay charges of fraud and breach of trust against former senator Mac Harb, now retired, and current independent senator Patrick Brazeau, now suspended.

April 15: The RCMP say they are no longer investigating Nigel Wright. Investigators say the evidence against Wright doesn’t support laying criminal charges.

April 25: The Supreme Court of Canada unveils its roadmap for how the Senate can be reformed or abolished.

Here’s a list of previous attempts by the Conservative government on Senate reform:

C-43 (Senate Appointment Consultations Act): Introduced in the House of Commons on Dec. 13, 2006. After prorogation, the bill is reintroduced, but doesn’t make it out of Commons committee.

S-4 (An Act to Amend the Constitution Act (Senate tenure)): Introduced in the Senate on May 30, 2006. Dropped from order paper on June 19, 2007, after Senate legal and constitutional affairs committee recommends the bill not proceed until the Supreme Court of Canada rules on its constitutionality.

C-20 & C-19: Introduced in the House of Commons on Nov. 13, 2007. C-20 would have allowed for consultative elections for Senate nominees. Sent to special committee before second reading. C-19 would have set term limits. It is debated for one day. Both bills die at dissolution in 2008.

S-7: Introduced in the Senate on May 28, 2009. Would have set eight-year term limits. Debated three days and never passes second reading.

C-10: Introduced in the House of Commons March 29, 2010. Would have set eight-year term limits. Doesn’t pass second reading.

S-8 (Senatorial Selection Act): Introduced in the Senate on April 27, 2010. Would have allowed for consultative elections for Senate nominees. Dies at dissolution in April 2011.

For breaking news on Twitter, look for reporters Mark Kennedy (@Mark_Kennedy_) and Jordan Press (@jordan_press), or follow the hashtags #cdnpoli, #SenCa and #SCC.

]]>http://o.canada.com/news/national/a-short-history-of-the-senate-and-the-supreme-court/feed0supreme courtjordanpresPam Wallin ‘regrets’ paying back Senate $150,000 over questionable expenseshttp://o.canada.com/news/national/pam-wallin-regrets-paying-back-senate-150000-over-questionable-expenses
http://o.canada.com/news/national/pam-wallin-regrets-paying-back-senate-150000-over-questionable-expenses#respondThu, 24 Apr 2014 21:53:30 +0000http://o.canada.com/?p=434820]]>OTTAWA — If she had it to do all over again, suspended Sen. Pamela Wallin wouldn’t have repaid every dollar of her questionable travel claims.

In a radio interview Thursday, Wallin said she was advised not to repay the full amount auditors had flagged as problematic, and instead was urged to pay a smaller sum of about $40,000 that should have been billed to third parties, including companies where she served on a board of directors.

She ignored that advice and repaid the full amount.

“I regret I did it,” Wallin said on Toronto’s Newstalk 1010 radio Thursday.

Pamela Wallin speaks with the media as she leaves the Senate on Parliament Hill in Ottawa, Tuesday, Nov. 5, 2013..THE CANADIAN PRESS/Sean Kilpatrick

Wallin repaid about $150,000 to the Senate after a scathing review of her travel expenses. Outside auditors had found that numerous travel claims were for personal business, not related to her Senate duties. But Wallin said the full sum was made up of “charges that were rung up because of retroactively imposed new rules.

“And not that I don’t believe the intention was right, I just think that it’s given some people an excuse to say, ‘Oh, well, you must be guilty because you paid it back,’ ” she said. “I felt at the time it was the right thing for me to do because I thought it would help.”

It was the first time that Wallin has spoken publicly about the scandal about her travel expenses since the Senate voted in November 2013 to suspend her and two other senators — Patrick Brazeau and Mike Duffy — without pay. Wallin has long maintained she didn’t deliberately mislead the Senate over her billings. She repeated that in the interview, saying she made honest mistakes.

In principle, the three senators are eligible to return to the Senate as early as 2015, but there’s no guarantee that they will be welcomed back. The Senate could decide to reinstitute their suspensions, or could expel them altogether.

The RCMP outlined allegations of fraud and breach of trust against Wallin in court documents filed in the fall. Wallin said she hasn’t been in touch with the RCMP, calling such contact inappropriate. She faces no charges and the allegations have not been tested in court.

His demand on Wednesday followed a story in the Citizen about government records that appear to show Privy Council Office workers deleting an email account they were explicitly ordered to retain.

A March 22, 2013 email outlined how PCO staff were to suspend the accounts of departing personnel and track them on a central spreadsheet. Yet a March 28 service ticket appears to show the deletion of an account.

The records were released to the Citizen after the paper made an access to information request for documents regarding the emails of Benjamin Perrin, a former legal adviser in the Prime Minister’s Office.

According to RCMP court documents, Perrin was allegedly involved in negotiations to secure Duffy’s agreement to a plan to cover repayment of the senator’s questionable housing claims, which totalled more than $90,000.

The PCO said Tuesday that no email deletions took place and that Perrin’s emails were retained because of a lawsuit unrelated to the Duffy affair. On Wednesday, PCO spokesman Raymond Rivet declined to comment further on what was meant in the March 28, 2013 IT service ticket that said “accounts have been deleted,” or why staff wouldn’t have heeded the earlier March 22 order.

“They (PCO) were told straight up, you’re not allowed to erase these things, and then they proceeded to erase them,” Mulcair told reporters Wednesday. “There’s no question that there has to be an investigation.”

The expenses and the backroom deal that saw Nigel Wright, Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s former chief of staff, allegedly cover Duffy’s expenses out of his personal funds are the subject of an RCMP fraud and breach of trust investigation. Perrin’s emails are evidence in the investigation.

Mulcair said the internal PCO documents raise more questions about what happened to Perrin’s emails, which PCO thought were erased for months before realizing there were still existing messages. It handed some emails over to the RCMP in December.

More emails were handed over to the RCMP in January. According to court documents obtained by the CBC, the RCMP received a hard drive with what appeared to be deleted data retrieved from PCO systems.

Mulcair made his comments Wednesday on the steps of the Langevin Block — home to the Prime Minister’s Office — while levelling allegations of criminal wrongdoing against Harper’s office. (Nothing in the documents released to the Citizen suggests illegal acts.)

“Mr. Mulcair has levelled serious allegations against PMO staff without a shred of evidence; his suggestion that anyone in the PMO illegally destroyed emails is unsubstantiated and completely false,” said Harper spokesman Jason MacDonald.

“The Prime Minister instructed that staff provide the RCMP with whatever assistance they require as part of their investigation. The RCMP has been provided whatever assistance and documents they required for their investigation.”

]]>http://o.canada.com/news/national/mulcair-demands-probe-of-disappearing-emails-in-senate-affair/feed00.000000 0.0000000.0000000.000000MulcairjordanpresRed chamber reckoning: Top court ready to rumble on fate of the Senatehttp://o.canada.com/news/national/red-chamber-reckoning-top-court-ready-to-rumble-on-fate-of-the-senate
http://o.canada.com/news/national/red-chamber-reckoning-top-court-ready-to-rumble-on-fate-of-the-senate#respondWed, 23 Apr 2014 16:31:10 +0000http://o.canada.com/?p=433675]]>OTTAWA — In a historic ruling Friday, Canada’s top court will lay out the roadmap the country must follow for changing or abolishing the Senate. What the Supreme Court of Canada decides will determine whether the Conservative government can make good on a promise it has so far failed to deliver: Senate reform. Here’s your guide.

What the federal government asked the court:

1) Can Parliament unilaterally allowprovinces to hold voluntary “consultative” elections to choose nominees for the Senate?

2) Can Parliament unilaterally set fixed terms for senators?

3) Can Parliament unilaterally remove from the Constitution the requirement that senators must own land worth $4,000 in the province they represent, and have a net worth of $4,000?

4) What degree of provincial consent is required to abolish the Senate?

About these issues:

Consultative elections: In practice, the prime minister makes appointments to the Senate. The federal government argues it does not need to amend the Constitution — which could bring reform to a grinding halt — in order to hold consultative elections. Such elections wouldn’t change how senators are selected: the prime minister would still make the appointments, but he or she would be able to select nominees from the list of winners of provincial plebiscites.

Term limits: The Constitution isn’t explicit about what is needed to impose term limits; the federal government argues it can do this by itself, using Section 44 of the Constitution, which gives it certain powers to deal with the Commons and Senate unilaterally. The federal government wants a nine-year term limit, saying this is the historical average period of time senators serve. Currently, they can serve until they are 75.

Property qualifications: The property-holder requirements for being a senator haven’t been updated since 1867. No one opposes the idea of changing them, but Quebec has raised concerns about leaving the power to do this solely with the federal government. Quebec senators have a special requirement to either reside in or own $4,000 worth of property in their senatorial division (the Senate’s equivalent of a House of Commons riding, which only exists in Quebec). Quebec wants its legislature to consent to any change on this front.

Abolition: Does abolishing the Senate require the constitutional consent of seven provinces with half of Canada’s population — the so-called “7/50” rule — or the agreement of every province? The federal government argues that it requires “7/50.” (Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia supported the federal government’s position; the rest argue abolition needs unanimous consent.)

Other things to watch for Friday:

1) The Constitution: Prior to 1982, any change to the Constitution required the consent of the British parliament. The federal government didn’t need the consent of provinces on any changes, but obtained it as an unofficial practice so that it would have the backing of the country. It has fewer choices now: In the most recent case where the Constitution became an issue — the appointment of Marc Nadon to the top court — the Supreme Court said the government couldn’t unilaterally make changes to the composition of the court without the backing of the provinces. That statement could foreshadow what the justices will say on Senate reform Friday.

2) Francophone communities: One of the defining aspects of the Senate is to protect minority rights. Over the years, that has evolved to include protecting the rights of minority language communities. The country’s largest Francophone association argues that Senate elections could erode Francophone representation outside of Quebec and minority representation across the country. The Supreme Court justices may reference this in their ruling.

3) The effect of the Senate spending scandal: Supreme Court justices are acutely aware of public reaction to the Senate spending scandal involving high-profile players such as Mike Duffy, Pamela Wallin and Patrick Brazeau. A lawyer for the federal government even alluded to the scandal in a submission to the court. The justices may make some broader comments on the Senate.

4) How the Conservatives respond: Prime Minister Stephen Harper has been a proponent of Senate reform for decades. Shortly after becoming prime minister in 2006, he testified before a special Senate committee that the upper chamber needed to change. How the government responds to the court’s ruling could suggest its future strategy toward the red chamber.

Whom to watch:Prime Minister Stephen Harper: He’s an original Reform party MP, and the Triple-E Senate — elected, equal and effective — has been one of his political planks. Will he get what he wants from Friday’s court ruling? Will he be forced to consider constitutional negotiations?

Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin: Whose name adorns a Supreme Court of Canada judgment sometimes says a lot about the significance of the decision. When the court rejected Marc Nadon’s appointment to the bench, every justice in the majority signed the decision. Where will the chief justice be on these issues?

Quebec Premier Phillipe Couillard: Wednesday was Couillard’s first official day on the job as premier of Quebec. He’s publicly said he’s not interested in opening up the Constitution to discuss only the Senate; he’d want to talk about some of Quebec’s other interests too. How will he respond to the court?

NDP Leader Thomas Mulcair and Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau: The NDP wants to abolish the Senate and has used the Senate spending scandal as an argument to support its cause. Trudeau has said change to the Senate can happen without the need to open the Constitution. Friday’s decision will tell both party leaders where they can take this issue.

Joe Public: Public opinion polls have consistently suggested that the public wants something done with the Senate. A high-profile Conservative senator and a Quebec cabinet minister have both floated the idea of a referendum on the future of the Senate: give the people their say on what should happen, then leave it their elected officials to make it happen. What will taxpayers say once the Supreme Court has its say?

Fun fact:

$92,000,000: The total cost to run the Senate reaches almost nine figures. The current payroll for senators alone is about $12.5 million (more than $14 million when all 105 seats are filled; some are currently vacant). Proponents of abolition say getting rid of the Senate could save a whack of money — and maybe create a nice party room in the east end of the Centre Block.

]]>http://o.canada.com/news/national/red-chamber-reckoning-top-court-ready-to-rumble-on-fate-of-the-senate/feed0Supreme Court of CanadajordanpresSome emails in Duffy spending affair reportedly deleted despite orders to retain themhttp://o.canada.com/news/national/some-emails-in-duffy-spending-affair-reportedly-deleted-despite-orders-to-retain-them
http://o.canada.com/news/national/some-emails-in-duffy-spending-affair-reportedly-deleted-despite-orders-to-retain-them#commentsTue, 22 Apr 2014 18:20:09 +0000http://o.canada.com/?p=430601]]>OTTAWA — Information technology workers in the Privy Council Office appear to have deleted an email account from a key player in the Mike Duffy Senate affair days after being ordered to save every email and file from the prime minister’s departing staff.

Internal PCO emails, along with IT service tickets, show that two orders to retain digital files were sent in mid- and late-March 2013. The latter order was sent just days before Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s one-time legal adviser, Benjamin Perrin, left his office.

Perrin left the PMO in late March 2013. A March 28, 2013, IT service ticket about Perrin’s email and network accounts said “accounts have been deleted” — even though the PCO said no such deletion occurred.

About eight months later, PCO found the emails — which it thought were lost — and handed over a cache of Perrin’s messages to the RCMP as part of the force’s fraud and breach of trust case against suspended Sen. Mike Duffy.

Partial records about these emails have been released to the Citizen under the access to information law.

RCMP court documents allege Perrin was repeatedly in email contact with Duffy’s lawyer in February and March of 2013 as Nigel Wright, Harper’s former top aide, and other senior PMO officials worked to contain the political damage caused by the senator’s questionable housing expenses.

The PMO and PCO have publicly said that departing staffers are responsible for retaining emails before their departure from Harper’s office. A March 4, 2013, email from a PCO IT service account to an undisclosed recipient makes the point in bold lettering: “As per department and government policy, it is the responsibility of the departing individual to cleanup (sic) and transfer any documents … or emails to the appropriate staff or electronic file storage area.”

That email was copied to PCO officials in PCO’s network accounts division.

Eleven days later, PCO lawyers notified PCO employees that the office needed to preserve documents associated with a lawsuit (which turned out to be unrelated to the Duffy affair). The memorandum, which was almost completely redacted before release to the Citizen, was circulated to PCO IT workers in a March 15, 2013, email from that office’s chief information officer.

A week later, on March 22, 2013, an IT worker involved in deleting Perrin’s email and user accounts, received an email with the subject line “hold deletion of network accounts.” The email also went to another IT worker and to PCO’s chief information officer.

The email said that “until further notice,” emails “cannot be deleted.” Instead, accounts would only be disabled, not deleted, and tracked internally on a central spreadsheet.

Even so, six days later, the records appear to show, IT workers deleted Perrin’s account despite the warnings in the preceding two weeks.

Despite what the records suggest, a spokesman for Harper said on Tuesday that Perrin’s emails weren’t in fact deleted.

“They (the PCO) in fact did not delete the account, but they originally claimed that they had,” Jason MacDonald said in an email to the Citizen.

A spokesman for PCO said the email accounts referenced in the documents “were not deleted.” Raymond Rivet did not explain what accounts the March 28 IT ticket reported to delete, nor what prompted PCO officials to order a hold on future deletion requests.

The disappearance and reappearance of Perrin’s emails have been an ongoing mystery in the Duffy affair.

While Perrin was not directly involved in Wright’s decision to personally cover Duffy’s questionable $90,000 housing claims, he was allegedly intimately involved in negotiating Duffy’s agreement to go along with the repayment plan.

The Mounties had asked for Perrin’s emails, expecting that these would help investigators piece together what transpired behind closed doors in the Prime Minister’s Office over Duffy’s expense repayment and an audit of his housing expenses. Instead, the Mounties were first told the emails were deleted as per government policy, only to be told later on that messages were, in fact, retained.

The PCO did hand over some of Perrin’s emails to the Mounties in December, saying it had mistakenly lost track of them. About one month later, the department provided more emails to the Mounties as part of the force’s ongoing Senate investigation.

Harper spokesman MacDonald said neither the prime minister nor his office were aware at the time of the orders to retain documents. Harper ordered that Wright’s emails be retained and “the RCMP be provided any assistance it required as part of its investigation, including providing any emails,” MacDonald said.

Messages left for Perrin were not immediately answered Tuesday. Perrin has thus far declined to comment publicly on the case.

Last week, the RCMP publicly confirmed that Wright won’t be criminally charged in the case, saying the evidence didn’t support laying charges.

]]>http://o.canada.com/news/national/some-emails-in-duffy-spending-affair-reportedly-deleted-despite-orders-to-retain-them/feed10.000000 0.0000000.0000000.000000Complaints against PM, Duffy lawyersjordanpresWhat the Supreme Court could do to the Senate next weekhttp://o.canada.com/news/national/alert-top-court-to-rule-next-week-on-senate-reform
http://o.canada.com/news/national/alert-top-court-to-rule-next-week-on-senate-reform#commentsThu, 17 Apr 2014 15:24:55 +0000http://o.canada.com/?p=430396]]>OTTAWA — Canada’s top court will clarify the future of Senate reform next week.

On Thursday, the Supreme Court of Canada said it will deliver its opinion on the Harper government’s plans for the Senate April 25, earlier than many had anticipated – and just before parliamentarians return to Ottawa following a two-week break.

Whatever the top court determines will re-ignite a longstanding debate over the red chamber that has flared anew since the Senate spending scandal became public more than a year ago.

Once the court rules, the federal government will know how much power it has on its own to reform or abolish the Senate, or how much buy-in it requires from the provinces to make changes to the upper chamber. Here’s a guide:

The lay of the land today:

The prime minister appoints senators. Once they’re in, senators keep their jobs until age 75, death or, if they choose, earlier retirement.

What the government wants to do:

Prime Minister Stephen Harper wants to set term limits and allow provinces to hold elections to select Senate nominees. The prime minister would then appoint senators from that list. The federal government wants to be able to move ahead with these initiatives without having to get provincial permission to do so. It also wants the ability to abolish the Senate — with some provincial input in that process. The question is: how much?

Key terms: “7/50” vs. “unanimous”:

The Supreme Court is not being asked whether the Senate should be abolished or changed — only how the government must proceed if it wishes to do these things. The court will provide guidance on how much provincial consent is required for any changes to the Senate. It could decide, for instance, that the consent of seven provinces with half the population — the so-called “7/50” rule — is needed for certain changes, including abolition. Or it could also say every province has to sign off on any proposal — unanimous consent. Either of these routes requires opening up the Constitution, which would mean potentially messy negotiations among the federal and provincial governments.

The implications:

Harper has long promised — and thus far not delivered — Senate reform. He has even said that if the upper chamber can’t be reformed, it should be abolished.

The NDP wants to see the chamber abolished.

The Liberals have argued it’s possible to reform the Senate without opening up the Constitution.

The legal decision will carry political implications for each party heading towards an election in 2015.

The context:

Observers have suggested that while the Supreme Court is focused on the legal and constitutional issues in this case, it doesn’t make its rulings in a vacuum, detached from the wider feelings of the nation.

One former and one current senator – Mac Harb and Patrick Brazeau, respectively – are charged with fraud and breach of trust, while charges may be laid within weeks against two suspended senators, Mike Duffy and Pamela Wallin. Earlier this week, the RCMP said it would not lay charges against a top aide to Harper who was involved in helping Duffy repay questionable expense claims.

Meanwhile, the federal auditor general is scrutinizing the spending of senators.

It is against this backdrop that the Supreme Court will hand down its landmark decision – whatever it is.

jpress@ottawacitizen.com

Twitter.com/jordan_press

Who agrees with whom so far?

Which provinces are siding with the government on term limits?

Ontario is supporting the government on term limits, but only if the limits are for nine years or more.
Saskatchewan is taking the same stand on term limits, but only if they are 10 years or more.

Which provinces are siding with the government on abolition of the Senate?

Alberta, Saskatchewan and British Columbia.

Which provinces are siding with the government on Senate elections?

Alberta and Saskatchewan.

What do the others say?

Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, Quebec and New Brunswick say term limits and Senate elections require the consent of seven provinces with half the population (known as the “7/50” rule); they say outright abolition requires the unanimous agreement of the provinces.

British Columbia argues the 7/50 rule applies for any reforms.

Quebec argues it must give consent for the federal government to eliminate or change a special requirement in the Constitution for Quebec senators to either own $4,000 of property or reside in their senatorial district.

Nunavut and Northwest Territories argue Senate abolition can’t take place without consultations with northern peoples.

]]>http://o.canada.com/news/national/alert-top-court-to-rule-next-week-on-senate-reform/feed1senatejordanpresEnd of Wright probe won’t make Senate scandal go awayhttp://o.canada.com/news/national/decision-not-to-charge-wright-wont-make-senate-scandal-go-away
http://o.canada.com/news/national/decision-not-to-charge-wright-wont-make-senate-scandal-go-away#respondWed, 16 Apr 2014 21:16:42 +0000http://o.canada.com/?p=429924]]>The RCMP’s decision not to charge Nigel Wright in the matter of the $90,000 payment to Sen. Mike Duffy will be enormously significant to you if you believe the only standard we should expect of those in public office is that they are not found to have committed a crime.

It will be equally significant to you if you are so convinced of his guilt, in advance of any trial and in the absence of any but the publicly known facts, that the failure to lay charges can only be explained as a result of either wilful incompetence on the force’s part or some sort of conspiracy.

And, of course, it will be especially significant to you if you are Nigel Wright. After so many months under investigation, it must be a great relief to hear that the RCMP has concluded “the evidence gathered does not support criminal charges against Mr. Wright.” I have no cause to doubt their judgment. (I remind readers again that I have a conflict, having gone to university with him and maintained contact after.)

For the rest of us, nothing much has changed. Just because no charges have been laid — against Wright: Duffy was given no such assurance — does not mean nothing happened here, or that it wasn’t wrong. The central facts, after all, are not in dispute: The prime minister’s then chief of staff paid the senator $90,000, in secret, in return for his silence about a matter of some embarrassment to the government, namely his own falsely claimed expenses.

Nigel Wright, former chief of staff for Prime Minister Stephen Harper, is shown appearing as a witness at the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics on Parliament Hill in Ottawa on Nov. 2, 2010. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Sean Kilpatrick

This is not, as the prime minister’s people initially maintained and as Tory partisans continue to claim, about a selfless public servant returning Duffy’s ill-gotten gains to the taxpayer. The primary beneficiary of Wright’s largesse was Duffy, who was not a private citizen but a member of the Senate of Canada. Even at that, the matter might not have excited such controversy, had the payment been made openly, and without further stipulation. But paying a sitting legislator under the table, on the condition he keep quiet about a matter that, if you’re scoring, remains under criminal investigation? Can everyone pay off the senator of their choice, or only prime ministers’ chiefs of staff?

And the issues raised in this affair, let us recall, go far beyond Wright, or Duffy, or the terms of exchange between them. Wright’s eventual decision to pay Duffy’s falsely claimed expenses out of his own funds came only after lengthy internal discussions involving more than a dozen senior party and PMO officials, including the prime minister’s legal counsel, Benjamin Perrin, and the chairman of the Conservative party’s fundraising arm, Sen. Irving Gerstein. Indeed, there is evidence that at one point it was agreed that Duffy should be repaid by the party, before the full extent of his expense-cadging was known.

And beyond the frantic efforts to make Duffy “whole” there was the broader campaign of deceit that accompanied it: the tampering with an independent audit, the whitewashing of a Senate committee report, the public statements from various officials, all designed to encourage the public to believe a lie: that Duffy was guilty of nothing more than a misunderstanding, at worst an error, and had paid back his expenses out of his own pocket. Had news of Wright’s payment never broken, that is the story we would all still be told today.

Certainly we would never have learned the truth from the principals, any one of whom could have come forward at any time in the past year to answer questions about what he knew of this affair, though none has. What we have learned has come from media reports and internal emails recovered by the RCMP. Yet all sorts of questions remain, as unanswered today as they were before. Of these, two stand out.

The first is simply, why? Why was so much effort expended by so many important people with other important duties on behalf of one not terribly important senator? Even if we accept the apparent assumption of everyone involved that filing false expense claims merits no greater penalty than having to pay the money back, why wasn’t Duffy simply told to pay it himself? Why was it so urgent that he be kept happy?

And two: where did any of them get the idea that this sort of behaviour was acceptable? The question that everyone prefers to ask — what did the prime minister know and when did he know it? — is in fact subordinate to this. To be sure, the prime minister’s refusal to give a full accounting, his shifting stories, his evasion of simple questions of fact, do not inspire confidence in his claims of total ignorance of the scheme.

But even on its face, the story he tells is implausible in the extreme. It requires us to believe, not only that Wright kept him in the dark, but so did everyone else, not only before the story broke but long after — that is, after he had told Parliament that Wright acted alone. And it requires us to believe that Wright not only lied to him, but lied to his fellow conspirators about what the prime minister knew: notably in the famous “good to go” email.

And if he really did not know? Then the Duffy affair was born, not of any directive by the prime minister, but of a broader culture, in which paying hush money, tampering with audits and lying to the public were considered all part of a day’s work. Just so long as nobody is charged with a crime.

A two-year study by the Senate’s official languages committee has found that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and its French-language arm, Radio-Canada, fall short of meeting obligations to provide content in both official languages. The committee’s report, released Tuesday, noted that CBC/Radio-Canada didn’t believe the Official Languages Act applied to programming activities.

The committee felt otherwise, saying CBC/Radio-Canada “cannot evade its responsibilities.” Those responsibilities, the committee said, includes providing programming for francophone communities outside of Quebec so they can see, hear and read about themselves.

But meeting those needs in the future is murky, the committee said, given looming job cuts that will be announced Thursday by the CBC. Corporation president Hubert Lacroix is to outline the overall plan for the CBC going forward without the revenue it is about to lose from National Hockey League broadcast rights.

“Given the uncertain budgetary context in which the Corporation has been operating for some time, many representatives from English and French linguistic minority communities wonder what the future holds for them,” the report said. “Many of them feel that these financial requirements should not distract the public broadcaster from its primary mission, which is to be at the heart of their development and to advance both official languages across the country.”

Four things the committee recommended. It said the CBC/Radio Canada should:

1) Ensure all Francophones see, hear and read about themselves and their communities in French.

2) Change corporate culture.

3) Focus on young people by offering content in French and English on all platforms — radio, television and online — that they want to consume.

4) While focusing on online content is key, CBC/Radio-Canada shouldn’t forget “traditional media” that are essential “in a minority context, where obstacles to Internet access still remain.”

]]>http://o.canada.com/news/national/budget-cuts-hinder-cbcs-minority-language-services-senate-report-says/feed00.000000 0.0000000.0000000.000000Craft French CBC 20130605jordanpresTelevising transparency: Senate mulls $2-million tab to bring in the camerashttp://o.canada.com/news/national/televising-transparency-senate-mulls-2-million-tab-to-bring-in-the-cameras
http://o.canada.com/news/national/televising-transparency-senate-mulls-2-million-tab-to-bring-in-the-cameras#respondTue, 08 Apr 2014 15:47:05 +0000http://o.canada.com/?p=424237]]>OTTAWA — A $2-million proposal to put cameras in the Senate now rests in the hands of Conservative senators, not all of whom are enthused. Here’s what you need to know:

Why is Senate TV being discussed at all?

The Senate spending scandal suddenly put the upper chamber under intense scrutiny. In response, the red chamber began streaming audio of the Senate at work — a first in its history. But no one was able to see senators debate the dramatic suspensions of senators Mike Duffy, Patrick Brazeau and Pamela Wallin unless they were actually in the chamber. Still, interest was high enough that CBC, CPAC, CTV and Global TV streamed the audio of debates through their own websites.

Senators believe that to be more open and accountable, they need to let Canadians see debates, not just hear them: “Canadians will always know we’re spending their money, but they won’t know what for” without television cameras, said Senate Liberal Grant Mitchell, one of four senators on a working group reviewing options.

Don’t they televise the House of Commons?

The Commons has had cameras since 1977. The Senate only sees cameras on special occasions, such as a throne speech, but it has broadcast Senate committees since 2002.

How much will this cost?

It could cost $2 million. The plan would cover the cost of four cameras, about the size of small stereo speakers, wiring, and a control room one floor below the Senate in the Centre Block on Parliament Hill. The equipment could be moved with the Senate when it temporarily vacates the Hill in 2018 as renovations begin on the Centre Block.

When can we start watching at home?

The Senate missed a deadline two weeks ago that, if it had been met, would have seen equipment ordered this month, installed over the summer and created a broadcast-ready red chamber by September. To get cameras into the Senate by the end of the calendar year — which Speaker of the Senate Noël Kinsella has proposed — will require a final decision by June.

Do all parties support this?

The Senate Liberals want cameras in the upper chamber. But the Conservatives form the majority in the Senate. There are hints some Conservatives are balking at the idea.

Is there any other spending involved?

You mean aside from some senators deciding to boost their wardrobes for TV? The Cable Public Affairs Channel is willing to spend an additional $600,000 to create a special Senate portal on the CPAC website. That portal would package speeches in the Senate by topic and offer a livestream of the chamber.

Two years later, he’s stepping back into the squared circle, this time with the power to decide who wins, who loses, and who gets to hit his opponent with a chair while Brazeau has his back turned.

Yes, the controversial and suspended senator, who also goes by “Brass Knuckles” Brazeau, will be the special guest referee at the main event for Great North Wrestling’s show next month.

Will Brazeau call it straight?

“I’ve always been a trustworthy person and I think that you can trust me, certainly the fans can trust me. I’ll be calling this match right down the middle,” he says in an online video promoting the upcoming charity event. Then removing his sunglasses and turning to the camera, Brazeau smiles and adds: “Or maybe not.”

That can’t be helpful for the grapplers entering the ring that night. But Brazeau should be careful as well: One of the wrestlers in that match is a man who could make Brazeau sing the blues if the calls go the wrong way: The Honky Tonk Man.

“I can only say I hope the Senator stays focused on his ‘call it as you see it’ position in this big match and he does not get distracted by the on goings surrounding his current position outside the ring,” the Honky Tonk Man, who is on his farewell tour, said in an email Monday.

“I look forward to the Senator taking part in this huge event. I am sure he will make the calls fair and just. If not, HTM will administer the proper punishment.”

Brazeau and the Honky Tonk Man will be taking part in Great North Wrestling‘s show on May 10 in Smiths Falls, Ont. Brazeau appeared in an online video to promote the event, saying he’s been a professional wrestling fan since he was young and “I still am to this day.”

Brazeau is asked about that boxing match with Trudeau, where the senator said he was a 3-1 favourite: “I was a betting man and I made a lot of money off of that.”

In the video, Brazeau is seen with scars on his forehead, which he said had nothing to do with boxing: “These are all the scars I had working at this place,” he said, pointing at Parliament Hill.

The Senate suspended Brazeau without pay in November over allegations that he filed false housing expense claims. He is currently charged with one count each of fraud and breach of trust in relation to those claims. He faces separate charges of assault and sexual assault stemming from a domestic incident more than one year ago.

jpress@ottawacitizen.com

Twitter.com/jordan_press

]]>http://o.canada.com/news/patrick-brass-knuckles-brazeau-gets-ready-to-ref-pro-wrestling-match/feed0PatjordanpresConservative Sen. Hugh Segal wants both sides to compromise on Fair Elections Acthttp://o.canada.com/news/national/conservative-sen-hugh-segal-wants-both-side-to-compromise-on-fair-elections-act
http://o.canada.com/news/national/conservative-sen-hugh-segal-wants-both-side-to-compromise-on-fair-elections-act#commentsFri, 04 Apr 2014 17:10:46 +0000http://o.canada.com/?p=422426]]>OTTAWA – Conservative Senator Hugh Segal says he thinks criticism of the proposed Fair Elections Act is overblown but is urging both the government and opposition to soften their positions and pass a law that will have broader public support.

“I think everybody should take a Valium,” Segal said of the intense debate surrounding the electoral reform bill that critics warn could disenfranchise thousands of voters.

“It’s not as good as some people say. It’s certainly not as bad as some people say.”

Segal dismissed as “an overreaction” the opposition to provisions in the bill that end the practice of vouching — allowing electors to vouch for the identity of another person who doesn’t have identification documents.

“The notion that we’re going to be keeping hundred of thousands of people from voting is fiction. It’s the worst kind of creationism.”

Senator Hugh Segal speaks to reporters in this file photo. (Justin Tang for National Post)

But Segal thinks the government will need to moderate its hardline position against amendments in order to win acceptance of the bill.

“The success of this legislation will depend upon the ability of both sides to put a little bit of water in their wine because, in the end, if the only people supporting it are the government and there are no amendments brought in of any kind, it probably won’t be as effective as if there was some multi-partisan presence.”

The bill is currently being studied by a House of Commons committee, which has heard testimony from current and former elections officers that is nearly unanimous in its condemnation of the bill, particularly over its elimination of the vouching process and provisions that effectively muzzle the chief electoral officer.

Once the bill is passed by the House, it will be up to Segal and his Senate colleagues to amend it, if they choose. Segal believes there is plenty of time to change the bill before the end of the parliamentary session at the end of June.

While neither Democratic Reform Minister Pierre Poilievre nor Prime Minister Stephen Harper have shown any indication they are willing to accept substantial amendments, Segal believes there will be willingness to modify the bill as more testimony is heard.

“If you’re open-minded to some measure of amendment, you want to wait until all the views are in and all the hearings are finished. I think there’s a lot of room for a lot of people to look at where improvements might be appropriate, but I actually think the bill is a pretty good bill to begin with.”

Media reports suggest that Poilievre told the Conservatives caucus in the Senate in a private meeting this week that he’s willing to reconsider the provisions that end vouching. The report has triggered speculation that Senate Conservatives might flex their muscles and oppose the government, as they did with a private member’s bill on labour union financial disclosure that passed through the House with government support but was rejected by the Upper Chamber.

Segal wasn’t at the meeting with Poilievre and says he doesn’t see much concern about the proposed law from other Conservatives in the Senate. “It wasn’t my sense there are many people on my side who are deeply troubled by the bill.”

Segal is a member of the Elections Canada advisory panel convened by Chief Electoral Officer Marc Mayrand last year to provide him advice on electoral reform and engaging younger voters.

The co-chair of that panel, former auditor-general Sheila Fraser, made headlines this week when she went public with a vocal condemnation of the Fair Elections Act as anti-democratic.

“Sheila Fraser, as the co-chair, has decided to express her own points of view on the present legislation and good luck to her,” Segal said. “She has the right do that, but that to my understanding is not why the advisory board was put together.”

]]>http://o.canada.com/news/national/conservative-sen-hugh-segal-wants-both-side-to-compromise-on-fair-elections-act/feed1segalglenmcgregorHugh SegalSenators split on speed, frequency of reporting committee travel spendinghttp://o.canada.com/news/senators-split-on-speed-frequency-of-reporting-committee-travel-spending
http://o.canada.com/news/senators-split-on-speed-frequency-of-reporting-committee-travel-spending#respondFri, 04 Apr 2014 19:41:09 +0000http://o.canada.com/?p=367308]]>OTTAWA—Taxpayers may soon get more details more often about how much Senate committees spend on travel.

The Senate is being asked to approve a recommendation that would see the red chamber annually post how much its committees spent on travel, part of a push to make the upper chamber more transparent.

Currently, approved travel budgets are publicly available, but the actual amounts spent are only reported within the first 15 days of the start of a new session. The reports that are made public are less detailed than some senators would like and appear, in some cases, long after a trip has actually taken place.

“Increasingly, requests are being received from the public, in particular the media, for more (and) more detailed breakdown of these expenditures,” reads a report to the Senate’s internal economy committee, penned by a three senators. (The report is embedded below. If it doesn’t show up, you can see it here.)

The sub-committee made two recommendations:

1) That spending details from trips be posted annually

2) That if a journalist came asking for details on a committee trip, the Senate would give out that information sooner, but only with the okay of the committee’s chairperson and vice-chairperson.

And that is where some senators raised concerns, worried that putting the information out too fast would interfere with the operations of red chamber. Finalizing all the cost of a trip can take weeks or months. The internal economy committee heard that a media request could force the Senate’s administration to squeeze that work into a shorter timeline, possibly at the expense of other work.

“I’m concerned that every time the media pushes a button, we jump on it,” said Senate Liberal Larry Campbell during Thursday morning’s internal economy committee meeting.

“We’re being completely transparent. I don’t see a right of the media to direct what we do here,” he said. “The media will never get enough information about what we do.”

Senate Liberal Joan Fraser, a former journalist, said the Senate should put out more information and, if reasonable, put it out faster.

“We are remarkably poor at communications,” Fraser said. “We are a public institution. We serve the people who pay for us and we have an obligation to provide information in as timely a fashion as we can.”

The debate is wrapped up in an ongoing crackdown on committee travel spending, with the internal economy committee rejecting some spending requests because of a lack of details.

For years, the internal economy committee felt obliged to approve spending requests, even in the absence of detailed work plans. The Senate’s internal economy committee has said it would no longer just approve budgets without details.

Senate committees have traditionally budgeted the maximum amount expected for travel, meaning estimates include the potential cost if all committee members and a full staff contingent decide to travel. Usually, the maximum amount isn’t reached.

]]>http://o.canada.com/news/senators-split-on-speed-frequency-of-reporting-committee-travel-spending/feed0throne speech senatejordanpresCost for TV cameras in the Senate likely to top $700,000http://o.canada.com/news/national/cost-for-tv-cameras-in-the-senate-likely-to-top-700000
http://o.canada.com/news/national/cost-for-tv-cameras-in-the-senate-likely-to-top-700000#respondThu, 03 Apr 2014 20:45:27 +0000http://o.canada.com/?p=420393]]>OTTAWA — It could cost the Senate at least $700,000 to bring in the TV cameras.

The yet-to-be-finalized figure reflects an estimate for live-streaming the business of the upper chamber online. A full television-quality broadcast system, such as the one in the House of Commons, could cost much more.

The $700,000 plan, being considered by a small committee of senators, doesn’t include future costs for transporting cameras when the Senate moves into a temporary home while workers renovate the Centre Block on Parliament Hill.

The Canadian Public Affairs Channel has told senators it is willing to spend an additional $600,000 to create a special Senate portal on the CPAC website.

“If you want to do it, there are only a few alternatives and you’ve got to pick one,” said Conservative Sen. Stephen Greene, who heads the four-senator working group reviewing options.

Sen. Doug Black, the second Conservative on the working group, said senators don’t want to be “penny-wise and pound foolish” on which camera option is selected, calling the decision an “investment issue” and “not a cost issue.”

“This is an issue of reputation,” said Black, an elected senator from Alberta. “Broadcasting of the Senate in a way that accesses all platforms is important.”

Senators plan to have the cameras in the chamber by the end of 2015.

Putting cameras in the Senate has been long debated. Conservative senators had a special caucus meeting on Thursday March 27 where the issue was on the agenda.

The House of Commons began televising proceedings in 1977. Only in 2002 did the Senate received time on CPAC to televise committee hearings. The Senate chamber only sees cameras on certain occasions, such as throne speeches and royal assent ceremonies.

The Senate started streaming audio of debates online late last year. Many Canadians first heard it during the weeks of debate over suspending three senators: Mike Duffy, Pamela Wallin and Patrick Brazeau.

It’s unlikely, however, that CPAC will be able to carry proceedings live. In a meeting with senators, CPAC officials explained the channel is contractually required to carry live proceedings of the House of Commons ahead of the Senate.

However, Senate proceedings could be carried live by any of the networks, such as CBC, CTV and Global Television if they wished.

]]>http://o.canada.com/news/national/cost-for-tv-cameras-in-the-senate-likely-to-top-700000/feed00.000000 0.0000000.0000000.000000Claude CarignanjordanpresConservatives signal possible changes to proposed elections acthttp://o.canada.com/news/national/conservatives-signal-possible-changes-to-fair-elections-act
http://o.canada.com/news/national/conservatives-signal-possible-changes-to-fair-elections-act#respondWed, 02 Apr 2014 17:15:12 +0000http://o.canada.com/?p=421041]]>OTTAWA — Cracks are appearing in the federal government’s staunch defence of its contentious elections bill, with suggestions from its own MPs and senators that the legislation could be modified by the end of the month.

The minister in charge of the Fair Elections Act, however, had little to say Wednesday.

“The bill is terrific the way it is,” Democratic Reform Minister Pierre Poilievre said. “The Fair Elections Act is common sense, it is reasonable, and I think everyday Canadians would say it’s fair to expect that someone bring their ID when they show up to vote.”

On Tuesday, Poilievre told a private meeting of Conservative senators that he was open to amending the bill, Senate sources told the Citizen. Several senators recommended changing a section of the bill that would, if passed, end the current practice of vouching for voters who don’t have proper identification.

Pierre Poilievre, Minister of State for Democratic Reform, stands in the House of Commons Friday, March 28, 2014. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Fred Chartrand

Some experts have argued the provision could disenfranchise thousands of voters.

“He (Poilievre) came in there with an open mind,” said Sen. Marjory LeBreton. ”He was very open to all of the discussions.”

On Wednesday, Transport Minister Lisa Raitt said the government would have “discussions about amendments and possible amendments as the process goes forward.”

“There’s a willingness to listen and, on certain things, there might be a willingness to have amendments if they’re good for the system,” said MP Erin O’Toole, the parliamentary secretary for international trade.

Opposition parties argued that the mere fact Poilievre appears open to changing his bill is a sign the government believes some provisions are untenable.

“Minister Poilievre, I think, has finally been told he pushed things too far. That smarmy arrogance that we’ve seen from Pierre Poilievre since the beginning is starting to play tricks on Stephen Harper,” said NDP Leader Thomas Mulcair. “They’re going to have to back off on a lot of this stuff, which is a good thing for our democracy.”

In the Senate, however, the Conservatives used their majority to limit debate over a motion to study the bill even before it arrives from the House of Commons. While not unusual, decisions to “pre-study” legislation in the Senate are usually reserved for money bills with time-sensitive deadlines.

The Conservatives want the Fair Elections Act passed through both chambers by June.

]]>http://o.canada.com/news/national/conservatives-signal-possible-changes-to-fair-elections-act/feed00.000000 0.0000000.0000000.000000Pierre PoilievrejordanpresPierre PoilievreHarper-appointed senator argues against his plan for elected chamberhttp://o.canada.com/news/national/harper-appointed-senator-argues-against-his-plan-for-elected-chamber
http://o.canada.com/news/national/harper-appointed-senator-argues-against-his-plan-for-elected-chamber#commentsTue, 01 Apr 2014 21:28:13 +0000http://o.canada.com/?p=419865]]>OTTAWA — A Conservative senator, appointed by Prime Minister Stephen Harper as part of his bid to reform the upper chamber, says the Senate should remain an unelected body.

And Sen. Nicole Eaton says she’s not alone in this belief. In an interview Tuesday outside the Senate chamber, Eaton said a number of her colleagues support the idea of keeping the Senate an appointed body. She is now urging them to back up what they’ve said privately with a public pronouncement in the chamber.

“In any organization, people say well done … yes I support you. But go stand on the floor (of the Senate) and say it. Be public with your comments,” Eaton said. “I feel I serve the prime minister by telling him really what I think. That’s what I did.”

Eaton gave the Senate — and Harper —her views on the future of the upper chamber in a speech last week. It was part of an ongoing debate within the Senate about the future of the red chamber as it faces the fallout from a spending scandal, and as the fate of Senate reform legislation awaits the judgement of the Supreme Court of Canada.

The Senate Reform Act would allow provinces to hold elections for nominees from whom the prime minister could then choose for appointments to the upper chamber. The act would also set nine-year term limits; currently, senators serve until age 75.

Eaton’s speech reflects a sentiment among some in the upper chamber that while some reforms are necessary, a fully elected Senate could become a carbon copy of the House of Commons and lose its ability to provide “sober second thought.”

In her speech, Eaton cited the Senate’s defeat of bill C-377, a private member’s bill that would have forced unions to disclose details of their spending online, and another bill about women’s health, as examples of the Senate fulfilling its role of pushing back when badly worded legislation arrives from the Commons.

She said the Senate need not be elected to be effective. Instead of holding elections, which the Senate Reform Act calls for, she feels the federal and provincial governments could create bipartisan committees to vet nominees for the chamber, with the prime minister having final say.

“The prime minister, very easily, without reopening the constitutional debate, could say to each of the provinces, put together a bipartisan committee and … I will float the names back to you for comment or for suggestion,” she said.

“It could be done both top down, or down up.”

Eaton was among a group of 18 appointments Harper made in 2009, a group that included Mike Duffy, Pamela Wallin and Patrick Brazeau. At the time, Harper said each appointee had agreed to support term limits for senators, and other reforms to the Senate. Eaton said she agreed with term limits, but hadn’t promised Harper anything else.

“When he phoned and asked me if I’d serve in the Senate, he asked me specifically if I would support term limits and I said, yes, I would. He did not ask me would I support an (elected) Senate,” Eaton said. “And I do support term limits. If the prime minister were to bring in a bill tomorrow, I would support it. I think it is very reasonable.”

But after her time in the Senate and hearing arguments about an elected and appointed Senate, she saw “an appointed Senate being the better of the two.”

A spokesman for government Senate leader Claude Carignan said that every senator is entitled to his or her own opinion.

]]>http://o.canada.com/news/national/harper-appointed-senator-argues-against-his-plan-for-elected-chamber/feed10.000000 0.0000000.0000000.000000116585-31.JPGjordanpres116585-28.JPGInvestigation report clears Sen. Colin Kenny of harassment allegationshttp://o.canada.com/news/investigation-reportedly-clears-sen-colin-kenny-of-harassment-allegations
http://o.canada.com/news/investigation-reportedly-clears-sen-colin-kenny-of-harassment-allegations#commentsTue, 01 Apr 2014 22:30:18 +0000http://o.canada.com/?p=420768]]>OTTAWA — A Senate-appointed investigator has found in favour of Sen. Colin Kenny after he was accused last October of sexually and verbally harassing a staff member and ordering her to run personal errands for him.

While the investigator’s report has not been made public, the independent investigator has found that on each accusation of wrongdoing “harassment has not occurred.”

The report is now in the hands of Kenny and the former assistant, Pascale Brisson, who each have five days to respond before it is delivered to the Senate Conservative and Senate Liberal whips.

It is ultimately up to the Senate as a whole to decide what should be done to any senator who is deemed to have violated any rules. The Senate would order any remedial action needed to prevent recurrences in the future.

Kenny was in the Senate Tuesday. In an email to the Citizen, he declined to comment on the findings of the independent investigator. “I must respect the process,” Kenny said. “I do have great confidence that eventually I will be exonerated.”

The Ontario senator, who is designated as representing Rideau, has previously dismissed the accusations against him as false, telling Postmedia News in November that he expected “at the end of the day to be vindicated.”

Brisson could not be reached for comment.

According to a CBC report, Brisson had alleged Kenny ordered her to do personal errands for him while working, such as paying his bills, buying clothes and making appointments. She also alleged, said the CBC, that Kenny verbally abused and sexually harassed her before she quit in October and filed a complaint.

Government Senate leader Claude Carignan said Tuesday he had not seen the report, but suggested the Conservative and Senate Liberal whips could end up making recommendations “to prevent in the future, misunderstandings or things like that.”

Liberal leader Justin Trudeau declined comment. “I have no senators in my parliamentary caucus and that will be up to the groups of senators in the Senate to decide what next steps are,” Trudeau said. Kenny was appointed as a Liberal senator in 1984 by Pierre Elliott Trudeau, but stepped down to sit as an independent in November. Later, in January, Trudeau removed all senators from his caucus.

According to the CBC, the investigation into Brisson’s complaint was conducted by Deborah Jelly of Glencastle Security Inc., an Ottawa-based, workplace-conflict resolution firm.

Jelly reportedly interviewed Brisson, Kenny, two other Kenny employees and another senator who had employed Brisson. The investigator apparently did not talk to Brisson’s parents, friends or doctor, even though Brisson had reportedly told them about her experience.

Kenny has been an outspoken critic of defence policy, and at one time headed up the Senate’s defence committee, until it devolved into partisan bickering made famous in an online YouTube video.

Kenny reaches the mandatory retirement age of 75 in 2018, by which time he will have served in the Senate for 34 years.

]]>http://o.canada.com/news/investigation-reportedly-clears-sen-colin-kenny-of-harassment-allegations/feed1HeraldleeberthiaumeCBC suffers from lack of focus, former chief of English broadcasting sayshttp://o.canada.com/news/national/cbc-suffers-from-lack-of-focus-former-chief-of-english-broadcasting-says
http://o.canada.com/news/national/cbc-suffers-from-lack-of-focus-former-chief-of-english-broadcasting-says#respondTue, 01 Apr 2014 16:03:26 +0000http://o.canada.com/?p=420394]]>OTTAWA — A former top executive with Canada’s public broadcaster says the organization’s strategy is “completely incoherent,” a result of a lack of focus in the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation’s mandate.

The lack of focus means it’s impossible to hold the CBC to account, said Richard Stursberg, former head of CBC English broadcasting.

“It tries to do a little of this, a little of that to try and satisfy all these different constituencies … its strategy is ultimately, completely incoherent,” Stursberg told a Senate committee Tuesday. “You can’t hold the CBC to account when there’s no consensus on what it’s trying to do.”

Stursberg said the government must lay out what it believes the CBC should and shouldn’t do, and let the corporation come up with a focused strategy. Whatever the focus, Stursberg suggested it needs to be backed up with money.

Compared to the British Broadcasting Corporation, the CBC receives seven times less money per capita to cover a larger geographic area with multiple time zones and two official languages, Stursberg said.

This fiscal year, the CBC will receive almost $1.04 billion dollars of public money, according to the main estimates.

“The cultural challenge is so much greater here, and yet the money available to try to address it is so much less,” said Stursberg. “If it (the CBC) is financed properly,” he said later, “it can compete.”

His almost two hours of testimony were part of a study the Senate’s transport and communications committee has undertaken into challenges facing the public broadcaster. The study, which won’t be wrapped up until early 2015, has drawn attention from supporters and critics, and has already included a testy meeting between senators and the head of the CBC, Hubert Lacroix.

Stursberg was brought in to the CBC in 2004 to raise viewership, only to be fired in 2010. His controversial book, Tower of Babel, told an insider’s story of the public broadcaster and was critical of how executives ran the corporation.

He was no less critical during his meetings with senators, suggesting the CBC stop broadcasting sports and producing local television news. He said the CBC should focus on international news and investigative journalism, two areas where private news agencies have been scaling back due to declining revenues.

The committee was told about three-quarters of the resources at the CBC and Radio-Canada go into news, a figure that a small group of senators also heard during two weeks of visits to western and remote communities the CBC serves.

“The message we hear universally is we need the CBC, we need a public broadcaster, it serves an important purpose,” said Conservative Sen. Leo Housakos, the committee’s vice-chairman. However, he said when senators question supporters and critics of the CBC about how well it fulfils its mandate, “they (the CBC) seem to be falling short in most cases.”

jpress@ottawacitizen.com

Twitter.com/jordan_press

]]>http://o.canada.com/news/national/cbc-suffers-from-lack-of-focus-former-chief-of-english-broadcasting-says/feed0cbcjordanpresTory senators gear up to grill minister over proposed election acthttp://o.canada.com/news/national/tory-senators-gear-up-to-grill-minister-over-proposed-election-act
http://o.canada.com/news/national/tory-senators-gear-up-to-grill-minister-over-proposed-election-act#respondMon, 31 Mar 2014 20:18:40 +0000http://o.canada.com/?p=419866]]>OTTAWA — The minister in charge of the Fair Elections Act faces a tough grilling from Conservative senators Tuesday morning as the government begins an early push to move the controversial bill through the upper chamber.

The bill has drawn opposition from some elections experts who argue some of the bill’s provisions could disenfranchise voters. In a strong rebuke last week, the author of a key report the government has used to promote the bill told a Commons committee he thinks the government should amend the Fair Elections Act, or kill it.

While it isn’t unusual for a minister or an MP pushing a private member’s bill to meet with senators, it’s also no guarantee of success; for instance Russ Hiebert, the MP behind a union finance disclosure bill, C-377, met with senators only to watch them gut his legislation months later.

Whether the Fair Elections Act will have the support of all Conservative senators is unclear. However, the senators — many of whom are veterans of political campaigns either as candidates or organizers — are very interested in the details of the legislation and will test Poilievre’s technical knowledge of the Fair Elections Act.

The meeting between Poilievre and Conservative senator comes as the government tries to fast-track the elections act through the upper chamber.

The government will ask the Senate Tuesday to study the Fair Elections Act even before it passes the House of Commons. Such pre-studies of bills are rare, usually saved for omnibus legislation such as budget bills that have sections requiring study by multiple Senate committees, or that have provisions that must be implemented by a certain date.

The government wants the Fair Elections Act through the Senate by June, just before Parliament breaks for the summer. Conservatives in the Senate argued Monday that a pre-study was needed so the Senate wasn’t left to rush through the bill at the last minute.

“That’s why it’s called the chamber of sober second thought,” said Sebastien Gariepy, a spokesman for government Senate leader Claude Carignan.

The leader of the independent Senate Liberals said he saw no need to study the Fair Elections Act before the House of Commons passes it. The government has hinted that it may amend some aspects of the bill, meaning the copy of the legislation that reaches the Senate could be different from the version used in the pre-study.

“We are the house of sober second thought. We (should) wait to see what the House of Commons does,” Cowan said.

Cowan said Senate Liberals were ready to approve the pre-study if the committee reviewing the bill was able to travel around the country to hold hearings. But he said that was a promise the government wouldn’t make, he said. The House of Commons committee studying the bill has not been permitted to travel.

jpress@ottawacitizen.com

Twitter.com/jordan_press

]]>http://o.canada.com/news/national/tory-senators-gear-up-to-grill-minister-over-proposed-election-act/feed0senatejordanpresPay raises delayed for senators’ political staffershttp://o.canada.com/news/national/pay-raises-delayed-for-senators-political-staffers
http://o.canada.com/news/national/pay-raises-delayed-for-senators-political-staffers#respondThu, 27 Mar 2014 19:15:41 +0000http://o.canada.com/?p=418229]]>OTTAWA — Political staff in the Senate have been told they’ll have to wait a little longer for a pay increase.

The executive of the Senate’s internal economy committee has deferred an anticipated wage increase after Treasury Board officials asked it to hold off.

The committee was told Thursday that Treasury Board officials fear a raise on the Senate side will hurt the government’s bargaining position in coming negotiations with the unionized administrative workers in the House of Commons.

In the Senate, raises to political staffers are traditionally in line with what administrative workers receive in the House of Commons and Senate. Too high an increase to Senate political staffers could set the bar too high for Treasury Board’s liking for those other workers as the government tries to reduce spending in the public service.

Negotiations with the House of Commons administration starts next month. Similar negotiations with unionized workers in the Senate start in October.

It comes as a small group of senators is ready to finalize recommendations on redoing job classifications for the approximately 180 staff who work in senators’ offices as policy advisers or executive assistants. Those staff have been awaiting the results of the report that would affect their salaries, which an outside consultant is finalizing for the upper chamber.

Sen. Vern White, who has headed up the job review, said, “I don’t think there’s going to be any dramatic results coming out of the (consultant’s) report.”

Some senators have openly worried about salary scales that don’t allow them to attract and retain the best workers, while others believe that a select number of staffers should have a special designation allowing them to earn more the normal maximum.

“I don’t think we have a retention problem, and I certainly haven’t seen a recruitment problem,” White said.

jpress@ottawacitizen.com

Twitter.com/jordanpress

]]>http://o.canada.com/news/national/pay-raises-delayed-for-senators-political-staffers/feed0Senate reformjordanpresToo many hurdles to disability savings plan, Senate committee sayshttp://o.canada.com/news/national/too-many-hurdles-to-disability-savings-plan-senate-committee-says
http://o.canada.com/news/national/too-many-hurdles-to-disability-savings-plan-senate-committee-says#commentsWed, 26 Mar 2014 21:20:40 +0000http://o.canada.com/?p=417790]]>OTTAWA — The Senate’s banking committee says the federal government has to do more to remove hurdles for Canadians to start a Registered Disability Savings Plan (RDSP), and do a better job of advertising the under-utilized program.

Issues with the six-year-old program have dampened uptake to the point that only 15 per cent of 500,000 eligible Canadians have applied for an RDSP to save for their future needs.

The government created the RDSP program in 2007 on the advice of an expert panel. When it came into effect in 2008, it was designed, for instance, to help parents put away money for a disabled child’s future needs.

Over the last seven years, the government has committed more than $800 million in grants and bonds to the RDSP program.

However, many Canadians haven’t applied to the program because they either don’t know it exists, or because of legal and administrative issues, the committee wrote in a report released Wednesday.

Others don’t apply because the withdrawal rules require a 10-year wait, which the committee said was too long and should be halved to help those whose disability could decrease their life expectancy.

The chief legal issue appears to be varying rules across the country to help disabled Canadians who don’t have a family member or lawyer to help them start an RDSP for their future. Those legal issues fall under provincial and territorial jurisdiction.

Different rules across the country mean eligible Canadians found to be legally incompetent and with no one to legally help them, have been unable in some cases to start an RDSP.

The committee didn’t think federal intervention would help the situation, because this could spark a constitutional challenge in the courts.

Rather than focusing on legal issues, the committee recommended the federal government “reduce the administrative burden” for applicants, and ensure they are “provided with any assistance they need” to start an RDSP. The committee also recommended the government consider automatically starting an RDSP once someone qualifies for a disability tax credit.

An interview request to the committee, under chairman Sen. Irving Gerstein, was not granted Wednesday.

jpress@ottawacitizen.com

Twitter.com/jordan_press

RDSP by the numbers:

12,000: Average number of RDSPs created each year since program became active

78,000: Total number of RDSPs created since 2008

3,800,000: Approximate number of Canadians aged 15 and older who have a disability, according to Statistics Canada

500,000: estimated number of disabled individuals in Canada eligible for RDSP

15 per cent: uptake rate for RDSP

$564.5 million: federal grants to the RDSP program

$235.8 million: federal bonds to the RDSP program

$200,000: Lifetime contribution limit for private contributions

A quick look at the RDSP:

– Much like a registered retirement savings plan (RRSP), an RDSP allows a disabled individual, parents, spouses or any other guardian to save for a beneficiary’s mid- and long-term future.

– The people eligible are those who qualify for a disability tax credit.

– Contributions can be made annually until the beneficiary of the RDSP turns 60

– Contributions are not tax-deductible

]]>http://o.canada.com/news/national/too-many-hurdles-to-disability-savings-plan-senate-committee-says/feed2senatejordanpresSenate set to unmuzzle its ethics watchdoghttp://o.canada.com/news/national/senate-set-to-unmuzzle-its-ethics-watchdog
http://o.canada.com/news/national/senate-set-to-unmuzzle-its-ethics-watchdog#respondWed, 26 Mar 2014 19:53:38 +0000http://o.canada.com/?p=417835]]>OTTAWA — The Senate ethics watchdog could soon be allowed to speak about her work.

The changes introduced in the upper chamber Wednesday would allow the upper chamber’s ethics officer to review any complaint she wishes without requiring the approval, in some instances, of a committee of senators.

Senate ethics officer Lyse Ricard would also be allowed to speak publicly about preliminary reviews into senators who have run afoul of the conflict of interest code if the review is already publicly known, or if she has cleared the accused senator of wrongdoing.

“That’s what we’ve been calling for, that the (ethics officer) be making those decisions based on the evidence and the rules without the committee having a say,” said Duff Conacher, co-founder of Democracy Watch.

“If these changes are implemented … the Senate ethics officer will finally have the opportunity to be a watchdog as opposed to a lap dog in the control of senators.”

The conflict of interest code forbids senators from using their position to garner a financially benefit for themselves or anyone else. The code requires every senator to post details of their financial investments and business interests.

Punishments, however, aren’t clearly defined. The proposed changes would clarify that a violation of the code could mean a slap on the wrist or, at worse, suspension. It would still rest with senators to decide which punishment fits what crime.

“Whenever you have politicians involved in any part of the enforcement regime, you’re tainting it with partisan interests,” Conacher said.

If approved, the rules would apply to future investigations, not current ones.

The ethics officer is looking into allegations that Conservative Sen. Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu tried to get employment perks for a woman with whom he was romantically involved.

]]>http://o.canada.com/news/national/senate-set-to-unmuzzle-its-ethics-watchdog/feed00.000000 0.0000000.0000000.000000senatejordanpresConservative senator says travel claims were appropriatehttp://o.canada.com/news/national/conservative-senator-says-travel-claims-were-appropriate
http://o.canada.com/news/national/conservative-senator-says-travel-claims-were-appropriate#commentsTue, 25 Mar 2014 20:48:50 +0000http://o.canada.com/?p=417082]]>OTTAWA — A Conservative senator says he was the target of “internal politicking” in the Senate after confidential details of his spending were leaked to the press.

Sen. Don Meredith said he didn’t violate any Senate travel rules when he went to Washington, D.C., last month. The pastor from Toronto said he used Aeroplan points to pay for the round-trip flights for him and his wife, and didn’t use his Senate travel fund. He did claim other expenses.

Senate sources said this week the Conservative whip in the Senate, Sen. Beth Marshall, didn’t approve of Meredith going to Washington, but he went nonetheless. While the whip’s decision can’t prevent a senator from travelling, the senator can still land in hot water with his or her party.

That led several Senate sources to suggest this week that Meredith was being publicly targeted and punished for not listening to Marshall. Marshall declined to comment.

“I wouldn’t say (it was a) hit job, (but) it was an opportunity to smear me and cause damage to my reputation,” Meredith said outside the Senate Tuesday. “I’m not deterred in any way by internal politicking that’s going on.”

Meredith went to the National Prayer Breakfast, a gathering of some 3,000 international politicians and diplomats that included U.S. President Barack Obama and members of the United States Congress. Three MPs went to the same event and charged flights, hotels and meals to the House of Commons.

While there, Meredith met with ambassadors from African countries, and members of Congress while he was in Washington.

Meredith filed an expense claim for almost $1,300 for hotels, taxis and meals during the five-day trip, expenses, he said, that he “deemed were government-related.”

“That’s what I submitted,” he said.

Meredith has faced questions about his spending, such as flying business class between Toronto and Ottawa. But he said there is no special expense review underway of his spending, despite a report suggesting otherwise.

jpress@ottawacitizen.com

Twitter.com/jordan_press

]]>http://o.canada.com/news/national/conservative-senator-says-travel-claims-were-appropriate/feed1MeredithjordanpresSenate considers savings from potential staff retirementshttp://o.canada.com/news/national/senate-considers-savings-from-potential-staff-retirements
http://o.canada.com/news/national/senate-considers-savings-from-potential-staff-retirements#respondThu, 20 Mar 2014 21:22:12 +0000http://o.canada.com/?p=414047]]>OTTAWA — Almost one-quarter of Senate staff are eligible to retire in the next five years, raising the issue of just how lean the upper chamber can make its administration.

The number, which the Senate had previously declined to release, is contained in a letter senators received last week from Senate clerk Gary O’Brien. The four-page missive, obtained by the Ottawa Citizen, was sent after the newspaper reported on efforts by the Senate to cut personnel costs.

Whether every one of those people leaves their job is unknown — as is whether their positions can be eliminated altogether if they choose to leave the administrative body of almost 400 people.

“In the next five years, there is the potential for some 99 people to retire from the Senate administration, which could lead to further savings,” O’Brien wrote.

“However, it is difficult to predict when these people will choose to retire and whether they will decide to work part-time or retire altogether. It is also difficult to predict if positions from which people retire can be eliminated without having an impact on services provided to the Senate.”

When the government announced in 2012 it was cutting $5.4 billion from its budget and eliminating about 19,000 jobs from the federal public service, the Senate and House of Commons were immune from the austerity measures. The Senate, however, decided to find ways to cut spending.

Between the 2010-11 and 2014-15 fiscal years, the total budget for the Senate has dropped by about 2.6 per cent, or more than $2.47 million, according to the main estimates recently tabled in Parliament.

The portion of the budget senators have a say on (about one-third of the budget is statutory spending, such as senators’ salaries, that are set out in the Parliament of Canada Act) has been cut by almost $1.96 million during that time, a drop of 3.3 per cent. Of that, the Senate administration cut its budget by almost $1.7 million, according to the letter.

During that time, the Senate’s administration — which comprises clerks, security, communications, travel and financial staff — reduced its workforce to 393, down from 420 recorded two years ago. That number doesn’t include the 99 who will become eligible to retire over the next five years.

The Senate has declined to disclose its current administrative payroll, arguing the number is only for internal management use, but it is estimated to be almost $40 million.

The size of the Senate’s administration has been a concern for critics inside and outside the upper chamber who wonder whether the Senate and taxpayers receive value for money in the administration. That has taken on new attention following an expenses scandal where oversight of senators’ spending — or lack thereof — is under greater scrutiny.

The size of the Senate administration, for instance, is about the size of the administrative body that supports the Ontario legislature.

O’Brien, in his letter to senators, argued that was a false comparison.

“The article neglected to determine whether the full range of services provided are in any way different given federal versus provincial jurisdictional powers and responsibilities,” he wrote.

“These differences, among others, do not appear to have been weighted.”

He argued that the Senate, for example, has to “pay for transport of up to 105 senators to and from all corners of the country” and run “international interparliamentary diplomacy and training programs.”

According to government listings, there are about 50 staff in the international parliamentary affairs section of the Senate, which oversees travel for parliamentary associations who perform “soft” diplomacy or advocate informally for Canadian interests. Critics call this a junket circuit.

About one-fifth of the administrative payroll, O’Brien wrote, is eaten up by security personnel.

The Senate and House of Commons have been in discussions for years about merging their respective security forces, a recommendation the federal auditor general made two years ago in a special report to Parliament.

jpress@ottawacitizen.com

Twitter.com/jordan_press

Senate spending by the numbers

2011-2012 fiscal year

Total budget in main estimates: $93,956,000

Difference from previous year: +$1,085,000

Percentage change from previous year: +1.17 per cent

Total voted budget (includes committee budgets, caucus funds; not including statutory spending such as senators’ salaries and allowances): $59,490,350

2012-2013 fiscal year

Total budget in main estimates: $92,216,000

Difference from previous year: -$1,740,000

Percentage change from previous year: -1.85 per cent

Total voted budget: $57,933,343

Difference from previous year: – $1,557,007

Percentage change from previous year: -2.6 per cent

2013-14 fiscal year

Total budget in main estimates: $92,517,029

Difference from previous year: +$301,203

Percentage change from previous year: +0.3 per cent

Total voted budget: $58,169,816

Difference from previous year: -$236,473

Percentage change from previous year: -0.4 per cent

2014-15 fiscal year

Total budget in main estimates: $91,485,177

Difference from previous year: -$1,031,852

Percentage change from previous year: -1.12 per cent

Total voted budget: $57,532,359

Difference from previous year: -$637,457

Percentage change from previous year: -1.1 per cent

]]>http://o.canada.com/news/national/senate-considers-savings-from-potential-staff-retirements/feed0Senate disciplinejordanpresSenator’s travel expense claim for prayer meeting under scrutinyhttp://o.canada.com/news/national/senators-travel-expense-claim-for-prayer-meeting-under-scrutiny
http://o.canada.com/news/national/senators-travel-expense-claim-for-prayer-meeting-under-scrutiny#commentsMon, 24 Mar 2014 18:53:34 +0000http://o.canada.com/?p=416275]]>OTTAWA — A Conservative senator’s spending is under special scrutiny from the Senate itself, after he made a trip to Washington that the Senate’s leadership didn’t approve.

Sen. Don Meredith, a pastor from Toronto, spent five days in Washington for the National Prayer Breakfast, a gathering of some 3,000 international politicians and diplomats that included U.S. President Barack Obama and members of the United States Congress.

Senate sources say Conservative whip Sen. Beth Marshall didn’t approve the trip, yet Meredith still went. The Senate’s own rules allow senators to take trips to Washington. The Hill Times newspaper reported that Meredith expensed business class flights for him and his wife, and a claim of $1,294 for hotel, taxis and meals.

As a result, insiders suggested Monday that Meredith was being punished by his party for not following orders, and that the punishment includes a spending review by the Senate.

Senate sources say Meredith has been punished before for flouting party orders, including losing spots on committees.

There have been questions about his spending, including his choice to fly business class between his home in Toronto and Ottawa rather than ride the train for free.

And late last year, Meredith spoke out and abstained on a vote to suspend senators Patrick Brazeau, Mike Duffy and Pamela Wallin without pay over their spending.

“I believe that we have rushed to judgment pending an RCMP investigation and I don’t believe that we have taken all the facts into consideration,” Meredith told reporters after the vote. “If I was accused tomorrow morning of breaking a Senate rule, I would like to be able to come before my Senate colleagues and be able to defend myself.”

“The auditor general is currently examining the expenses of all senators. We expect all senators to spend taxpayer’s dollars responsibly,” said spokesman Sebastien Gariepy.

Auditor general Michael Ferguson is looking at how senators spend public funds, with the power to review expenses going back years. He is also vetting how the Senate administration reviews expense claims, with his final report expected to expose any problems.

Three MPs went on the same trip as Meredith, and charged the House of Commons for flights, hotels and meals. Conservative MPs Steven Fletcher and Harold Albrecht went to the prayerbreakfast, along with Green Party Leader Elizabeth May. Albrecht’s office confirmed he expensed more than $1,000 for the three-day trip, while May’s office said she expensed $980 for an economy, round-trip flight, and two days of per diems for food and taxis, but didn’t expense a hotel as she stayed with a friend.

Fletcher didn’t say how much he expensed, but said the claims followed Treasury Board guidelines. He also said the trip was worth any cost.

“You can do in three days what would probably take three years in any other context,” Fletcher said. “There’s just no other place that you’ll find the president, the vice-president, Congress in one place at one time and accessible.”

jpress@ottawacitizen.com

Twitter.com/jordan_press

]]>http://o.canada.com/news/national/senators-travel-expense-claim-for-prayer-meeting-under-scrutiny/feed1MeredithjordanpresMac Harb fraud case to rely on ‘crucial’ reports about fuzzy Senate ruleshttp://o.canada.com/news/national/mac-harb-fraud-case-to-rely-on-crucial-reports-about-fuzzy-senate-rules
http://o.canada.com/news/national/mac-harb-fraud-case-to-rely-on-crucial-reports-about-fuzzy-senate-rules#respondTue, 18 Mar 2014 15:47:24 +0000http://o.canada.com/?p=413046]]>OTTAWA — The findings of the Senate’s own auditors that its expense rules are unclear could be “crucial” for the defence of former senator Mac Harb, his lawyer said Tuesday.

Harb is charged with one count each of fraud over $5,000 and breach of trust, for housing expense claims he filed to the Senate over 10 years.

The one-time Liberal senator has long maintained he did nothing wrong in claiming a secondary housing allowance while in the Senate. Before repaying the Senate about $231,000 in expenses dating back a decade, he pointed to findings in his expenses audit in which independent auditors from Deloitte called the Senate’s expense rules vague and unclear.

Senator Mac Harb is shown on Parliament Hill Thurday, May 9, 2013 in Ottawa. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Sean Kilpatrick

In the fall, the Senate heard the same view from KPMG, the firm that audits the Senate’s annual financial statements. A letter to the Senate from KPMG has yet to be released, but a copy of it was reviewed by the Ottawa Citizen. Not only could Harb make use of the information, but so could Sen. Patrick Brazeau, who also faces fraud charges.

“It’s crucial information. It’s central to the issue,” lawyer Sean May said in an interview Tuesday.

“(Harb) maintains he’s not done anything wrong and we’re seeing more and more information coming out … that people who are in a position to assess things are saying the rules are unclear.”

May said Harb’s legal team hasn’t made any decisions about who might be called to testify, leaving all options open. That could mean that senior leadership in the Senate, such as former government Senate leader Marjory LeBreton, may be called.

“We’ll be mounting a very strong defence,” May said.

The fraud case against Harb, a longtime Ottawa-area politician, began with a first court hearing Tuesday. Harb himself didn’t appear in court. His case was put over until April 22.

The RCMP alleged in court documents that Harb had claimed to live in a home more than 100 kilometres from Parliament Hill. He did so in order to qualify for a annual living allowance, now valued at $22,000 a year, for a secondary residence in Ottawa, the police say. In court documents, the RCMP alleged the out-of-town house Harb claimed as his primary residence was considered uninhabitable for three years, and that he sold 99.99 per cent ownership to a Brunei diplomat who has since left Canada.

When the RCMP announced charges against Harb in early February, the Mounties said there wasn’t enough evidence to support a charge of mortgage fraud over the sale of the home.

May said he received a “significant amount” of evidence through the disclosure process. May said there are thousands of pages of material to go through.

“We expected it to be quite complex,” May said. “We need to sort of see what we’re dealing with.”

A senator whose home is more than 100 kilometres from Parliament Hill can claim an allowance of up to $22,000 a year for accommodations in the national capital region, but only if that house, condominium or apartment is used strictly to “attend to his or her parliamentary functions in Ottawa.” The senator must also maintain a “provincial residence,” the place designated as their “principal home” in the province they represent. (Previously, the national capital accommodation was called a “secondary residence,” and the provincial residence was known as a “primary residence.”)

– What the auditing firm Deloitte said about the housing rules: That there was a “lack of clarity” in the terms used for primary and secondary residence.

– What auditors KPMG said about the Senate’s housing rules: That they were not “sufficiently detailed,” meaning some ineligible expense claims could inadvertently be approved.

]]>http://o.canada.com/news/national/mac-harb-fraud-case-to-rely-on-crucial-reports-about-fuzzy-senate-rules/feed00.000000 0.0000000.0000000.000000Mac HarbjordanpresSenator Mac HarbSenate audit done by now? Auditor general was ready to say so, documents showhttp://o.canada.com/news/senate-audit-done-by-now-auditor-general-was-ready-to-say-so-documents-show
http://o.canada.com/news/senate-audit-done-by-now-auditor-general-was-ready-to-say-so-documents-show#respondTue, 18 Mar 2014 17:52:43 +0000http://o.canada.com/?p=412467]]>OTTAWA — When Canada’s auditor general walked before senators in June to officially take on the task of conducting a sweeping probe of Senate spending, he made no promises of when he would complete his review.

Copies of Ferguson’s speaking notes were released to the Ottawa Citizen under the access to information act.

An early draft of his speaking notes said this: “During the reporting phase, we will confirm and validate the facts in a draft report with the clerk and the audit sub-committee. The results of our work will be presented in the form of a report addressed to the Speaker for presentation in the Senate. It is too early for us to fix a date for this report, as we need to complete our planning, but will aim to complete our examination in late 2013 or early 2014, and report in fall 2014.”

The final draft, used as Ferguson’s opening statement to the committee said this: “During the reporting phase, we will confirm and validate the facts in a draft report to the clerk and audit sub-committee. The results of our work will be presented in the form of reports addressed to the Speaker for presentation in the Senate. It is too early for us to fix a date for reporting, as we need to complete our planning.”

]]>http://o.canada.com/news/senate-audit-done-by-now-auditor-general-was-ready-to-say-so-documents-show/feed0Auditor general Michael FergusonjordanpresCase of Sen. Patrick Brazeau’s housing expenses now in courthttp://o.canada.com/news/national/case-of-sen-patrick-brazeaus-housing-expenses-now-in-court
http://o.canada.com/news/national/case-of-sen-patrick-brazeaus-housing-expenses-now-in-court#respondMon, 17 Mar 2014 14:05:06 +0000http://o.canada.com/?p=412381]]>OTTAWA — Sen. Patrick Brazeau’s fraud case is likely to help define when a senator can claim expenses for a secondary residence in the nation’s capital.

The legal test of residency may also apply to retired senator Mac Harb, who, like Brazeau, is accused of filing fraudulent housing expense claims to the Senate.

As both move toward trial this week, the arguments around this question also could influence the situation of Sen. Mike Duffy, whom the RCMP have also been investigating over his expenses. Duffy, whose housing expenses have been under scrutiny, has not been charged with a crime.

Brazeau and Harb face one count each of fraud over $5,000 and breach of trust.

Brazeau, who is currently suspended from the Senate, wasn’t in court for a first hearing Monday after being charged in early February. The RCMP allege Brazeau filed fraudulent expense claims to the Senate between March 2011 and July 2013. Brazeau’s lawyer, Christian Deslauriers, appeared on his behalf and said his client denies the allegations against him.

The case against Brazeau is expected to be complicated and “voluminous,” Deslauriers said.

“The nature of the case, the scope of the case, the fact that it’s covered by the media makes it maybe more complicated, but also there seems to be some notions of law that will have to be explored,” Deslauriers told reporters outside the courthouse.

“One of the notions that will have to be explored is the notion of residence: permanent residence, secondary residence are notions that will have to be explored and these notions in law are very complex issues.”

Harb’s case was to get its first airing in front of a judge Tuesday. The retired senator was not expected to be in court.

Over the next six weeks, Brazeau’s legal team will receive the evidence the RCMP have collected against the senator, a process known as disclosure.

The allegations against Brazeau stem from a detailed RCMP investigation that alleged he didn’t live at the home in Maniwaki, Que., that he had told the Senate was his primary residence. By designating the Maniwaki home as his main residence — RCMP court documents allege his father owned it — Brazeau received a housing allowance, now valued at $22,000 annually, for a secondary home he kept closer to Parliament Hill.

The RCMP had also been looking at Brazeau over allegations that he may have filed fraudulent income tax claims.

“I don’t expect any other charges to be laid, but surprise, surprise, we can’t know in advance what is going to happen,” Deslauriers said.

jpress@ottawacitizen.com

Twitter.com/jordan_press

What do Senate rules say about housing?

A senator whose home is more than 100 kilometres from Parliament Hill can claim an allowance of up to $22,000 a year for accommodations in the national capital region, but only if that house, condominium or apartment is used strictly to “attend to his or her parliamentary functions in Ottawa.” The senator must also maintain a “provincial residence,” the place designated as their “principal home” in the province they represent. (Previously, the national capital accommodation was called a “secondary residence,” and the provincial residence known as a “primary residence.”)

— What the auditing firm Deloitte said about the housing rules: That there was a “lack of clarity” in the terms used for primary and secondary residence.

— What auditors KPMG said about the Senate’s housing rules: That they were not “sufficiently detailed,” meaning some ineligible expense claims could inadvertently be approved.

— What Patrick Brazeau’s lawyer, Christian Deslauriers, said about housing: “One of the notions that will have to be explored is the notion of residence: permanent residence, secondary residence are notions that will have to be explored and these notions in law are very complex issues.” (March 17, 2014)

— What Senate Speaker Noel Kinsella has said about housing rules: “We were using ordinary language that everybody understood — we all knew where we lived, at least I thought we all knew where we lived — and it became problematic.” (Dec. 2, 2013)

What else you need to know about the red chamber:

In court: On Monday, the case of Sen. Patrick Brazeau, charged with one count of fraud over $5,000 and breach of trust, reached an Ottawa courtroom. Brazeau was represented in court by a lawyer who told reporters his client disputed the charges against him, and suggested a key aspect of the case will be the legal notion of “home.” Tuesday morning, the same process begins for retired Liberal Sen. Mac Harb (he does not plan to appear in person).

With the RCMP: The RCMP has said it would update Canadians on other investigations of interest but it has yet to do so: these include investigations into Sen. Pamela Wallin’s travel expenses, and Sen. Mike Duffy’s housing and office spending. There’s also the matter of former Harper chief of staff Nigel Wright’s $90,000 payment to Duffy.

At the auditor general’s: Canadians await the outcome of a comprehensive Senate spending review by federal auditor general Michael Ferguson. He recently posted a “frequently asked questions” page about the Senate on his website, a rare move for an office that doesn’t publicly discuss its work. Senators have been told the auditor general could refer suspicious cases to the RCMP before the audit ends. Add it all up, and Senate insiders say there is an undercurrent of worry running through many senators’ offices.

In the Senate: Conservatives in the upper chamber have started posting detailed spending figures online, some even creating websites as a result of a party decision to release detailed expense figures. The independent Senate Liberals are trying to figure out how to post their expenses to their communal website. The Senate’s internal economy committee is still discussing uniform disclosures for each senator. And soon, another round of quarterly expense reports will be made public.

The other investigation: An internal Senate investigation continues into harassment allegations against Sen. Colin Kenny. Portions of a purported interim investigative report were leaked to the media late last month, painting an unflattering picture of the Pierre Trudeau appointee. Questions continue about if and when a final report will be made public. Kenny has denied all allegations against him.

]]>http://o.canada.com/news/national/case-of-sen-patrick-brazeaus-housing-expenses-now-in-court/feed0brazeaujordanpresAlmost 400 staffers needed to run the Senate? Red chamber wants that to shrinkhttp://o.canada.com/news/national/almost-400-staffers-needed-to-run-the-senate-red-chamber-wants-that-to-shrink
http://o.canada.com/news/national/almost-400-staffers-needed-to-run-the-senate-red-chamber-wants-that-to-shrink#respondFri, 14 Mar 2014 20:39:32 +0000http://o.canada.com/?p=410675]]>OTTAWA — Canada’s Senate is trying to shed some of the almost 400 people who work in its administration – a number that doesn’t include staffers employed by individual senators.

The paring pleases critics and some members of the upper chamber who feel the Senate’s administrative numbers are bloated.

According to the main estimates tabled earlier this month in Parliament, the Senate plans to reduce full-time staff further, mostly through attrition. There are currently 393 administrative staff.

The government’s 2012 austerity budget called for the reduction of 19,000 federal workers while shaving more than $5 billion in spending, all by 2015. The Senate didn’t have to participate in the plan, but decided to put a freeze on hiring.

“I thought that we could reduce the number of personnel in the Senate and still efficiently serve the Senate operations,” said Sen. David Tkachuk, who was chairman of the Senate’s internal economy committee at the time the decision was initially made. “I still feel that way.”

In the coming weeks, senators on the committee will have to decide how much leaner to make the administration.

The Senate refused to disclose how many members of the administration are eligible to retire, saying “the information is for internal management use only.” However, the figure is believed to be between 10 and 20 per cent.

Should all those who are eligible to retire do so, it could mean a reduction of about 70 people for possible saving of up to $8 million. Both numbers are estimates based on Ottawa Citizen calculations; the Senate declined to provide any figures.

“They won’t even tell us what the total payroll is (for the administration),” said Gregory Thomas, federal director of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation. “It’s completely outrageous. In 2014?”

The Senate did provide the total amount budgeted this fiscal year for all salaries, which includes Senate administration, political staff and senators themselves: about $69 million.

After accounting for the cost of senators’ salaries — about $12.6 million — and the estimated cost for salaries for their 180 political staff — about $13 million — and benefits for both, about $38 million in salary costs remain for the Senate’s administration — approximately $97,000 per worker, a figure not far out of line with the average across the federal public service, according to the Canadian Taxpayers Federation.

The CTF compared the Senate administration to that of the Ontario legislature because the latter is a body of 107 politicians, just two more than the 105-seat Senate. According to CTF calculations, the Ontario legislature’s administrative body costs roughly the same in salaries as Senate administration.

“We should be able to run the Senate on fewer people than the Ontario legislature,” said Thomas. “There is room for cost reductions.”

jpress@ottawawcitizen.com

Twitter.com/jordan_press

What Senate administration does: A quick snapshot

International and interparliamentary affairs: This division is in charge of protocol for international visits and visitors, parliamentary exchanges and parliamentary associations, where senators and MPs travel around the world for “soft” diplomacy.

Finance and procurement: This division is in charge of overseeing all spending in the upper chamber, including reviewing the expense claims of senators.

Human resources: A staple in any organization, this division includes advisers and two student employees.

Committees: Includes the clerks and others who help committees with travel, booking witnesses to testify, and helping to write committee reports.

Communications: In charge of the Senate’s website, its social media presence, writing press releases for committee reports, and answering news media inquiries.

]]>http://o.canada.com/news/national/almost-400-staffers-needed-to-run-the-senate-red-chamber-wants-that-to-shrink/feed0JDT13 1105 SenateScanadal 3437jordanpresSenate cases off to court as other investigations continuehttp://o.canada.com/news/national/senate-cases-off-to-court-as-other-investigations-continue
http://o.canada.com/news/national/senate-cases-off-to-court-as-other-investigations-continue#respondFri, 14 Mar 2014 21:39:29 +0000http://o.canada.com/?p=411501]]>OTTAWA — This week, the fraud cases of one suspended senator and another who retired in the summer will get a first airing in court. What else looms for the red chamber? Here’s what you need to know:

In court: On Monday morning, the case of Sen. Patrick Brazeau, charged with one count of fraud over $5,000 and breach of trust, reaches an Ottawa courtroom, though it’s unknown if Brazeau himself will be there (a lawyer can answer the charges for him).

Tuesday morning, the same process begins for retired Liberal Sen. Mac Harb (he does not plan to appear in person).

With the RCMP: The RCMP has said it will update Canadians on other investigations of interest but it has yet to do so: these include investigations into Sen. Pamela Wallin’s travel expenses, and Sen. Mike Duffy’s housing and office spending. There’s also the matter of former Harper chief of staff Nigel Wright’s $90,000 payment to Duffy. The silence has fuelled speculation about whether further charges are coming.

At the auditor general’s: Canadians await the outcome of a comprehensive Senate spending review by the federal auditor general, Michael Ferguson. He recently posted a “frequently asked questions” page about the Senate on his website, a rare move for an office that doesn’t publicly discuss its work. Senators have been told the auditor general could refer suspicious cases to the RCMP before the audit ends.

In the Senate: Conservatives in the upper chamber have started posting detailed spending figures online, some even creating websites as a result of a party decision to release detailed expense figures. The independent Senate Liberals are trying to figure out how to post their expenses to their communal website. The Senate’s internal economy committee is still discussing uniform disclosures for each senator. And soon, another round of quarterly expense reports will be made public

The other investigation: An internal Senate investigation continues into harassment allegations against Sen. Colin Kenny. Portions of a purported interim investigative report were leaked to the media late last month, painting an unflattering picture of the Pierre Trudeau appointee. Questions continue to be raised about if and when a final report will be made public. Kenny has denied all allegations against him.

]]>http://o.canada.com/news/national/senate-cases-off-to-court-as-other-investigations-continue/feed0BrazeaujordanpresAuditor general posts Q-and-A about his study of Senate spendinghttp://o.canada.com/news/national/auditor-general-posts-q-and-a-about-his-study-of-senate-spending
http://o.canada.com/news/national/auditor-general-posts-q-and-a-about-his-study-of-senate-spending#commentsWed, 12 Mar 2014 19:48:46 +0000http://o.canada.com/?p=410053]]>OTTAWA — The federal auditor general plans to refer any cases he finds of questionable spending by senators to the RCMP even before his current comprehensive audit of Senate spending is made public.

The detail is contained in a list of frequently asked questions about the Senate audit that was put online this week — an unusual move for the auditor general’s office, which doesn’t normally publicly discuss aspects of any audit. The office posted information online after receiving numerous questions from the media and public — and after a series of leaks to the news media about the normally confidential audit.

Senators already had been warned that auditor general Michael Ferguson might refer cases of concern to the RCMP. News that he might refer those cases once he’s done poring through the spending, but before a final report is made public, will do little to assuage nervous senators.

“If, after completing our audit work, we have a reason to believe that a criminal offence may have been committed, the matter will be referred,” said spokesman Ghislain Desjardins. “It would be inappropriate to speculate on any specific cases.”

Desjardins wouldn’t say if the office has already referred any cases to police.

The RCMP has already charged one current senator, Patrick Brazeau, and one former senator, Mac Harb, with fraud over $5,000 and breach of trust. Both cases will be before a court next week.

The Mounties started probing the expenses for each senator before the Senate itself formally referred the cases to police.

Desjardins said the auditor general’s office made the decision to post a list of FAQs online “with the intention of transparency, accuracy and consistency,” and would update it as new questions roll in.

Much of what appears on the website mirrors what Ferguson has said publicly when questioned about the audit. For instance, the website says senators have asked questions and “information about what we are doing, but so far we are satisfied with the level of cooperation.”

The online statement notes that up to 40 auditors are working on the file at any one time, and that “no decision has been made” about providing the Senate with an interim report. Senators asked Ferguson in June if he could provide an interim report on the Senate’s spending oversight mechanisms, and the auditor general told senators at the time that he hoped to do so.

“We have never made a formal commitment to deliver an interim report,” Desjardins told The Ottawa Citizen. “Still no decision has been made about interim reporting at this time.”

Senators have told the Citizen they’ve been warned that Ferguson’s final report will name names, identifying the findings for each senator. The website says the auditor general’s office won’t “speculate on the audit findings, or how they will be presented,” and won’t say whether senators will see Ferguson’s final report before it is made public.

“We are not speculating about future steps,” the website says. “The report will be addressed to the Senate with a covering letter addressed to the Speaker of the Senate.”

Although the dates for the first hearings was set before last week, it became official Tuesday when the Ottawa courthouse released the summons and information sheet for each man. Both are charged with one count each of fraud over $5,000 and breach of trust.

The RCMP said last month that investigators were dropping their investigation of Harb over allegations of mortgage fraud, saying there wasn’t enough evidence.

Brazeau’s case is scheduled Monday morning; Harb’s is Tuesday.

The documents are below, but here are a few things to notice.

1. “Unknown” address: The information forms, which detail the charges against each man, have one word under the address heading: Unknown. The primary home for each man was a key issue in the audit of their living expenses that ended with the Senate ordering them to repay questionable claims.

2. Appearance dates: The forms make official the first dates for the case to appear before a judge. It is likely to be a short court appearance where the charges will be sworn and then a date for a next hearing set. Neither man has to be in court — they can be represented by a lawyer, which is what Harb will do. The dates had been in the court calendar earlier this month, but officials told The Ottawa Citizen last week that until the final documents came in, that date wasn’t set in stone. Now it is.

3. You’ve been summoned: The summons shows where and when the two men will have their first hearing, telling them that they or their legal representative need to be in court. It appears, though, that Brazeau received the summons before Harb. Brazeau’s summons was affirmed before a judge on Feb. 5 – the day after the RCMP announced charges against him. Harb’s summons was sworn on Feb. 24.

4. Going back to the start: The charges against each man span almost their entire Senate careers. For Harb, the allegations against him date back to Dec. 1, 2003 — weeks after then-prime minister Jean Chretien appointed the long-time Ottawa MP to the upper chamber — and end July 1, 2013, an almost 10-year span. For Brazeau, the allegations against him begin March 1, 2011 and run until July 1, 2013. Brazeau joined the Senate in January 2009.

But with a Quebec election that has swiftly unleashed the spectre of separatism, there are few signs these newly independent senators plan to get actively involved helping their provincial counterparts in the campaign.

Of Quebec senators from both federal parties who spoke with the Ottawa Citizen this week, the majority said they didn’t plan to speak out during the Quebec election. Among Liberal senators in the province, two said they weren’t going to get involved, three said they would without providing detail, and one declined comment.

MPs and senators don’t usually get actively involved in provincial campaigns in Quebec. NDP Leader Thomas Mulcair said recently he plans to stay neutral in the campaign; several cabinet ministers have said the same. MPs normally follow their leader on such matters.

It’s frustrating for Brent Tyler, a member of the Special Committee for Canadian Unity, a group advocating for federal involvement in the Quebec election. “They (the federal government) don’t meddle in provincial elections. They have a hands-off policy.”

But given election talk about Quebec’s secession — amid other issues such as the economy, education and the Quebec Charter of Values — Tyler argues federal representatives can’t “stand on the sidelines.”

Senators, who are unelected, have more independence than MPs to act on their own, and the Liberal “independent” senators presumably have more freedom still.

Three of the seven Liberal senators in the province suggested they may be involved on the sidelines campaigning against the Parti Quebecois. Spurring that call were comments this week by PQ star candidate and media baron Pierre Karl Peladeau, who said he wanted a country his children could be proud of: an independent Quebec.

“The issue of Canada transcends political parties at the federal level. When you sit in the federal Parliament … the binding that we have, beyond being Tory or NDP or Liberal, is the fact that we’re committed to maintaining Canada. And for us in Quebec, it’s an additional responsibility,” said Sen. Serge Joyal, who once served as vice-president of the Quebec wing of the federal Liberal party.

He did not say how he might get involved, but added,“We know that the fate of Canada is always part of our commitment to public life.”

Sen. Celine Hervieux-Payette, a one-time aide to former Quebec premier Robert Bourassa, said the threat of secession in the form of a PQ majority was a reason to get involved: “We cannot afford to pay that price for supposedly being independent (senators) when in fact we are all interdependent.” She didn’t indicate how she might become involved either.

“That’s the part where I don’t know how far I will be involved,” added independent Senate Liberal Dennis Dawson, a former Quebec MP.

“I’ll do the local campaigning, but it will be a different scenario than it was in the past.”

Federal politicians sometimes do work quietly, behind the scenes in local ridings, giving advice to candidates.

“If there is one issue that we’ve been putting on the back-burner in Ottawa for years it’s the sovereignty issue,” Dawson said. “I was hoping I would never have to go through this again.”

Among senators who are not commenting on Quebec so far are Conservative Senate leader Claude Carignan, who was a founding member and former candidate of the now dissolved Action democratique du Quebec (ADQ) party; and deputy opposition leader Joan Fraser, who chaired the special Senate committee reviewing the Clarity Act — federal legislation that outlines the wording of any referendum question on Quebec’s secession. Senate Liberal Charlie Watt, who has been in the upper chamber for 30 years, also declined comment.

Senators haven’t stayed out of all provincial elections. Most recently, Nova Scotia Liberals received open support from their senators, including Senate opposition leader James Cowan; in the late 2013 vote, the Liberals won a majority government.

Independent Liberal Sen. Celine Hervieux-Payette: “I won’t impose myself, but if they’re willing and happy to have me supporting them .. .I will accept. I think we should not take the lead, but give support.”

Conservative Sen. Judith Seidman: “I will not be participating in the Québec election campaign. I have great faith in the democratic process so let the people of Québec speak on April 7. And, I do believe that we will all work with the government of the day on common interests: namely the economy and job creation.”

Independent Liberal Sen. Paul Massicotte: “At this point, I do not intend to get involved. But certainly would if ever there was a referendum.”

Conservative Sen. Leo Housakos: “I have no time and no inclination. … I will exercise my right to vote.”

Independent Liberal Sen. Serge Joyal: “We have some kind of moral obligation to express to them (Liberals) that we support them … It’s the time to show up.”

]]>http://o.canada.com/news/national/even-independent-senators-shying-away-from-quebec-election-campaign/feed10.000000 0.0000000.0000000.000000Senator CowanjordanpresRaises for MPs, senators more than double average wage boost for public sector unionshttp://o.canada.com/news/national/raises-for-mps-senators-more-than-double-average-wage-boost-for-public-sector-unions
http://o.canada.com/news/national/raises-for-mps-senators-more-than-double-average-wage-boost-for-public-sector-unions#respondFri, 07 Mar 2014 21:26:58 +0000http://o.canada.com/?p=407957]]>OTTAWA — While the federal government speaks of fiscal restraint and cutting spending to return to a balanced budget, MPs are about to get a wage increase of 2.2 per cent.

And senators, whose salary increases are tied to what MPs earn, will take home 2.5-per-cent more this year than last, starting April 1.

For the fiscal year 2014-15, MPs will earn a base salary of $163,700, and senators will earn $138,200.

The increases are more than double the one-per-cent pay raise MPs are giving senior civil servants in the House of Commons administration. One per cent is also the average wage increase for public service unions, according to federal data on wage settlements.

MPs didn’t have to lift a finger to get this raise: After MPs allowed a wage freeze to end, existing federal legislation automatically kicked in to provide an annual boost on April 1. A notice of the increase went out to MPs this week from the House of Commons board of internal economy, just prior to the March parliamentary break.

Federal legislation requires senators to be paid $25,000 less than MPs, meaning a pay increase in the Commons punches up pay in the Senate (and makes the percentage increase, though not the wage figure, slightly higher).

“They are, as a group, receiving a real wage increase because inflation won’t be at 2.2 per cent,” said economist Mike Moffatt from the Ivey School of Business at Western University in London, Ont. However, the average Canadian has seen an increase in the last year of about 2.38 per cent in their average hourly rate, and 2.17 per cent in their average weekly rate, according to federal labour data.

Raises will also be doled out on the bonuses that are paid to cabinet ministers, house leaders, the Opposition leader, whips, deputy whips and committee chairs, along with the Speaker in the Commons and the Speaker in the Senate.

For example, MPs who are committee and caucus chairs will earn a bonus of $11,500 in the coming fiscal year, an increase of $200 from the $11,300 they earned in the last fiscal year. Whips for the government and the Official Opposition will receive a bonus of $29,400, an increase of $600 from the $28,800 they earned last year.

The increase in base salary for the 306 MPs in the House of Commons and to 93 senators, and bonuses paid out to the Speaker of the Commons, his deputies, house leaders in the Commons and deputies, whips and committee chairs, will cost almost $1.5 million. That number will go up when the Senate determines how much more it will pay in bonuses to senators performing extra duties.

Moffatt said the increase is actually small relative to what Canadians earning six-figure salaries have received. But those high-income earners have seen their wages increase faster than Canadians who earn at or below the median income in the country, he added.

However, large public sector unions on average have received less than half the increase MPs will receive. The increase to parliamentarians is also larger than what smaller unions and non-unionized workers usually receive, Moffat said.

In the private sector, “the point of having higher salaries is either to reward people or retain them,” said Moffatt, who has done research on income in Canada. “I suspect for a lot of (MPs), they would take these jobs for half the money. For a lot of them, it’s not about the money in the first place.”

Several MPs who are members of the internal economy board declined to comment, referring queries to the office of the Speaker of the House of Commons or the Senate.

It’s the second time in as many years that MPs and senators are receiving a salary increase, after having their wages frozen between fiscal years 2009-2010 and 2012-13.

As with last year, this spending increase will be reported when the government tables its supplementary estimates, a listing of extra spending not included in the government’s initial spending projections for a fiscal year.

The median income for full-time workers in Canada according to the National Household Survey: $47,868

Approximate date when Thomas Mulcair will earn the median income based on his new salary and bonus: June 12

Approximate date when Stephen Harper will earn the median income based on his new salary and bonus: May 24

How much suspended senators Mike Duffy, Pamela Wallin and Patrick Brazeau will earn as senators: $0

(Sources: Statistics Canada, Library of Parliament, House of Commons, Employment and Social Development Canada)

]]>http://o.canada.com/news/national/raises-for-mps-senators-more-than-double-average-wage-boost-for-public-sector-unions/feed00.000000 0.0000000.0000000.000000The House of CommonsjordanpresAuditors’ critique should have been shared before suspending senators, Tory sayshttp://o.canada.com/news/national/auditors-critique-should-have-been-shared-before-suspending-senators-tory-says
http://o.canada.com/news/national/auditors-critique-should-have-been-shared-before-suspending-senators-tory-says#respondWed, 05 Mar 2014 21:25:20 +0000http://o.canada.com/?p=406928]]>OTTAWA — A high-profile Conservative senator says he and his colleagues should have had access to a critique from the Senate’s own auditors of the upper chamber’s spending rules before they voted to suspend Mike Duffy, Pamela Wallin and Patrick Brazeau.

Sen. Hugh Segal, who defended Wallin during the debate in the fall over suspending the three, said a Senate committee had a “duty” to release the auditors’ information to senators. The information was produced weeks before a motion was introduced to suspend the three from the Senate without pay.

Segal called it “deeply troubling” that the critique, which questioned the clarity of rules and spending oversight, wasn’t in the hands of senators when they voted on the fate of the three senators, who were under fire over their expense claims.

In a mid-September letter to the Senate, audit firm KPMG, whom the Senate routinely uses to review its spending, called the chamber’s expense rules vague and said the Senate was at risk of accidentally approving inappropriate housing and travel expenses.

“It’s a further weakening, in my view, of the Senate’s case (to suspend),” Segal said Wednesday.

“These are fundamental questions that the Senate should have been made aware of … prior to the government leader bringing in motions of suspension.”

KPMG made the observations in a Sept. 17, 2013 letter to the clerk of the Senate. The Senate’s response letter was sent on Oct. 15 to the audit committee, a three-person panel made up of senators Beth Marshall, Larry Smith and George Furey.

Two days later, the government tabled motions in the Senate that led to Wallin, Duffy and Brazeau being stripped of all but their titles and some benefits.

Wallin had questioned the rules during an earlier review of her travel spending, which ended with her repaying about $150,000 in questionable claims. She and Duffy are being investigated by the RCMP over their expense claims, but no charges have been laid, nor have any allegations been tested in court.

Last month, the RCMP announced fraud and breach-of-trust charges against Brazeau and former Liberal senator Mac Harb.

Wallin’s lawyer said it was impossible to predict whether KPMG’s observations would have swayed the outcome of the suspension vote, but he questioned the motives of the committee for waiting months to release the letters.

The Senate will post the letters to its website when it posts its annual financial statements, sometime in the next few weeks.

The Ottawa Citizen reviewed a copy of both letters.

“Here’s KPMG — the Senate’s auditors — criticizing the vagueness of the travel and residence policies. That seems clearly an important piece of evidence,” said Terrence O’Sullivan, Wallin’s Toronto-based lawyer.

“I find the conduct of that committee, measured against what KPMG has to say, astonishing.”

That conclusion is contained in a letter from KPMG seen by The Ottawa Citizen. The letter cites the issue as a “significant deficiency.”

KPMG, which annually audits the Senate’s financial statements, made the observation in a mid-September letter to the clerk of the Senate, after completing its work on the Senate’s financial statements for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2013. The management letter, as it’s known, is a routine filing that auditors use to flag any issues identified in the course of a financial audit.

In the Sept. 17, 2013 letter, KPMG auditors wrote that the “expense claim policies related to housing allowances were not sufficiently detailed” regarding what kind of documentation was required to “ensure amounts claimed were appropriate.”

“The potential effect of this deficiency is that ineligible expenses may be approved and paid,” the letter reads.

It’s the second time the Senate has been told by an outside audit team that its rules, and the documents senators are required to submit to verify their expense claims, are not clear enough. Earlier in 2013, auditors from Deloitte came to a similar conclusion about the Senate’s housing rules after reviewing theclaims of senators Mike Duffy, Patrick Brazeau and former senator Mac Harb.

KPMG’s caution also landed just weeks before the Senate moved to suspend Duffy, Brazeau and Pamela Wallin over their expense claims.

“That has been my contention all along and I’m not surprised,” Brazeau said of the details of the KPMG letter. “The Senate (committee) of internal economy has much to hide.”

The KPMG letter is to be made public when the Senate posts its financial statements in a few weeks.

The Senate’s audit committee, which reports to the internal economy committee, was notified of KPMG’s findings and recommendations to strengthen the expense claim system just over a month before the Senate launched into a debate about suspending Brazeau, Duffy and Wallin without pay.

The KPMG auditors said the Senate’s system of reviewing expense claims, which requires each senator to report their own expenses, carries a risk “that ineligible expenses are paid.” The letter goes on to say that no matter what the Senate does, the system will never be risk-free.

KPMG recommended the Senate have senators sign an annual declaration that they are adhering to spending rules. As well, it recommended senators go through mandatory annual training to ensure they’re up to date on their own spending rules, and create a guide to give more details about spending rules.

The chairwoman of the audit subcommittee, Sen. Beth Marshall, said the Senate agreed with all the recommendations.

“We’re either doing most of these things or we will be implementing them to comply with the recommendations,” said Marshall, a former Newfoundland and Labrador provincial auditor general.

“We’re either doing most of these things or we will be implementing them to comply with the recommendations.”

The Senate response to the observations from bothDeloitte and KPMG was almost identical: the rules were “unambiguous” and the form attesting to where a senator has a primary and secondary residence was “amply clear” for anyone filling them out.

That response was contained in a letter O’Brien sent to Marshall, chairwoman of the audit subcommittee, on Oct. 15, 2013.

What KPMG recommended the Senate do to strengthen its expense claim system:

1. Annual performance audits of expense claims to make sure claims are correctly processed, approved or rejected. (The auditor general is evaluating how the Senate reviews expense claims as part of his comprehensive audit of Senate spending.)

2. Have senators sign an annual compliance agreement declaring that their claims are in line with Senate rules. (Senators sign a similar declaration with every expense claim they file.)

3. Mandatory training programs on filing expense claims for new senators and staff and an annual “update module” for everyone else. (The Senate provides training on expenses for new senators.)

4. Creating a companion to the rules with details about the interpretation or application of certain rules. (The Senate has a similar companion guide for its general rules.)

Senators on the internal economy committee — the body that oversees spending in the upper chamber — made the decision behind closed doors after a series of news stories were published containing confidential information about the auditor general’s not-yet-released audit.

The committee made the decision in December behind closed doors, The Ottawa Citizen has learned.

The committee asked its security division, which is in charge of the physical security of the Senate and senators as well as securing sensitive information, to look into the leaks and find ways to better keep secret the confidential details of auditor general Michael Ferguson’s comprehensive review.

When senators were first told the details of the audit late last year, they, their staff and members of the Senate’s administration were all warned to keep details confidential. Ferguson’s office has given out few details of the audit, citing that confidentiality.

There are conflicting details about how far along Ferguson is in the audit, with some suggesting his teams are nowhere near done with the first batch of senators under review. Ferguson is reviewing two years worth of expenses for all senators, with the possibility of going even further into past spending should he find something amiss with any individual’s expenses.

The decision to launch an investigation into leaks is a change in direction for the committee, which saw numerous tidbits of information about spending audits on four senators — Patrick Brazeau, Mike Duffy, Mac Harb and Pamela Wallin — leaked to reporters over the last 12 months.

Wallin’s lawyer even provided the committee with a list of leaks about details of her travel spending audit, arguing that they were intentionally given to selected media to damage her reputation. The list included names of people who had access to Wallin’s audit documents, suggesting that any of them as the source of the leak.

The Senate has not investigated leaks very well in the past.

Two years ago, the Senate’s banking committee started an investigation into a leak of a draft report on its study of the nation’s anti-money laundering initiatives to a French-language news outlet. In the end, the committee called no witnesses and told the Senate as a whole that it had dropped the matter.

]]>http://o.canada.com/news/national/senate-security-to-probe-information-leaks-about-auditor-generals-probe/feed0throne speech senatejordanpresDuffy vowed to hurt high-ranking Tories if expense issue led to charges, new book sayshttp://o.canada.com/news/national/duffy-vowed-to-hurt-high-ranking-tories-if-expense-issue-led-to-charges-new-book-says
http://o.canada.com/news/national/duffy-vowed-to-hurt-high-ranking-tories-if-expense-issue-led-to-charges-new-book-says#commentsTue, 25 Feb 2014 15:50:31 +0000http://o.canada.com/?p=401705]]>OTTAWA – Embattled Sen. Mike Duffy vowed that if he ever faced trial over his questionable expense claims, he would bring down high-ranking members of the Conservative party, according to a new book.

Duffy believed he had been set up by the Prime Minister’s Office, as part of Stephen Harper’s “Machiavellian” plot to abolish the Senate or “severely clip its wings,” writes Dan Leger in his new book, “Duffy: Stardom to Senate to Scandal.”

“Duffy seemed determined that, if he were to go down, he would have company, telling friends that, if charged, people high up in the Conservative Party would be called to testify to what they knew,” Leger writes in the book.

Leger, a former Parliament Hill reporter and retired newspaper editor, said in an interview with Postmedia News that Duffy was “speaking darkly about a ‘set-up by the PMO ‘ ” as early as May 2013, when the details of a deal to secretly pay his questionable expenses were made public and Duffy was pushed out of the Conservative caucus.

Duffy also spoke with Leger on the porch of his home in Cavendish, P.E.I., last August, laying out many of the explosive details he would later level in the Senate. He now faces the possibility of being criminally charged by the RCMP over allegations of fraud and breach of trust related to his questionable living claims and a $90,000 payment he accepted from Nigel Wright, Harper’s then-chief of staff.

“Without a doubt, Duffy believes he is the fall guy, that he and (Sen.) Pam (Wallin) … are taking the fall in order to protect the prime minister,” Leger said in an interview.

Leger’s book is due out this week from Nimbus Publishing. In it, Leger weaves together the timeline of Duffy’s rise from his days on Prince Edward Island as a radio enthusiast, to his becoming a Parliament Hill television reporter, and ultimately his appointment to the Senate as a Harper Conservative.

Leger said Duffy had desperately wanted a Senate seat for years.

“This Senate stuff – I thought it was a joke until I really had a chance to talk to folks from the Mulroney years, the Chretien years, the Martin years,” Leger said. “He (Duffy) was sending love letters” to each leader, looking for an appointment.

Martin was willing to appoint Duffy to the Senate, Leger writes, but wasn’t in office long enough to make the appointment a priority.

Leger said Duffy wasn’t partisan – in the book, he outlines moments where Duffy talked about running for the Liberals – but was very interested in being a senator.

The book adds details to the Duffy expense saga, including key meetings on Feb. 11 and 12, 2013, where Duffy and two top senators – David Tkachuk and Irving Gerstein — visited the Langevin Block that houses the Prime Minister’s Office. There, Duffy and Tkachuk met with Wright in room 204, which a source told Leger was “the prime minister’s private, high-security boardroom.”

The book creates an impression of Duffy as a canny journalist who told stories from his sources, crafting an insider image as “the Old Duff.” Leger suggests that Duffy let his ego overtake him, and became motivated by money, status and the desire to be the ultimate insider.

The book is based on months of research going through archival documents on Duffy’s past, numerous news reports with details of the Senate scandal, and about 35 interviews.

The author and the senator have a long personal history. It was Duffy who took Leger under his wing when Leger first arrived in Ottawa in the 1980s to cover Parliament Hill. Duffy had already been covering federal politics for about a decade.

Leger said Duffy showed him around, introduced him to MPs, senators and bureaucrats and talked him up to others, which gave Leger contacts – “a reporter’s lifeblood,” was how Leger described it in a column for the Halifax Chronicle Herald on May 20, 2013. In return, Leger provided Duffy details of early morning events that Leger had to cover as a wire-service reporter (Duffy wasn’t an early riser).

“It was a reasonable trade from my point of view,” Leger said.

Leger left Parliament Hill as a reporter in 1990, but kept in touch with Duffy every time the future senator came to Halifax for political events. Leger also kept in touch with many of his contacts from his time in the parliamentary press gallery, and kept picking up details of Duffy’s life.

When Harper appointed Duffy to the Senate in 2009, Leger said Duffy’s friends counselled him to use his Senate seat to champion a good cause and stay above the political fray.

Instead, Leger said, Duffy became “intensely partisan” with an “insensitive” streak. He became a political attack dog for the Tories, but also one of their best fundraisers, crisscrossing the country to meet with party faithful, and record fundraising videos for the Conservatives.

His spending became a problem starting in late 2012. The Ottawa Citizen raised questions about Duffy’s living expenses, noting that he had been a long-time resident of the capital before becoming a senator for Prince Edward Island.

Behind closed doors, Duffy was under pressure to repay the expenses, at that time known to be over $30,000. It wasn’t until months later that it was revealed Duffy owed $90,000.

Duffy refused to repay anything, believing he had done nothing wrong and was playing by the rules.

That was the feeling Leger said he got when he spoke with Duffy at length in August. Sitting on the deck of Duffy’s home in Cavendish, the two had a long talk in the sun where Duffy revealed he felt deeply hurt by the Prime Minister’s Office and said he had evidence to back up all of his claims.

“It’s definitely the case that he felt deeply betrayed,” Leger said.

Walking away from that conversation – which Duffy’s wife, Heather, watched closely from a window, apparently trying to get Duffy to stop talking – Leger said he got the sense Duffy was worried about his future, seemingly aware that he had burned many bridges and had nowhere to turn for help.

“One of the first things he said to me … well, it’s all going to come out in court.”

The Senate suspended Duffy without pay in early November over charges of “gross negligence” with his expense claims. In principle, he could be reinstated by the fall of 2015.

“I can’t see these independent Liberal senators or the rest of the Conservative caucus saying, ‘let’s bring the Old Duff back.’ … It’s going to be political dynamite,” Leger said. “He’s got to be looking back and seeing a lot of smoking wreckage and wondering where to go next. He’s really in a tough spot.”

jpress@postmedia.com

Twitter.com/jordan_press

Some things to know about Mike Duffy from Dan Leger’s book

– Duffy’s father was named Wilfrid for former Liberal prime minister Sir Wilfrid Laurier; his mother “came from solid Tory stock”;

– He won an ACTRA award for his coverage of a siege at the Turkish embassy in Ottawa in March 1985;

– Married twice. Has two children from his first marriage;

– In 1984, told a woman associated with the Liberals that then-prime minister John Turner wanted Duffy to run as a Liberal;

– Joined CTV in 1988 to start his weekend political show, Sunday Edition with Mike Duffy;

– After suing Frank Magazine for a story alleging he was at a “fat farm,” Duffy became a source for the magazine in 2005, talking up Conservative pals and attacking CTV colleagues he disliked;

– His father died of a heart attack at age 48; Duffy himself is a heart patient.

]]>http://o.canada.com/news/national/duffy-vowed-to-hurt-high-ranking-tories-if-expense-issue-led-to-charges-new-book-says/feed1Sen. Mike DuffyjordanpresMain estimates: Senate ethics officer gets a spending boosthttp://o.canada.com/news/national/main-estimates-senate-ethics-officer-gets-a-spending-boost
http://o.canada.com/news/national/main-estimates-senate-ethics-officer-gets-a-spending-boost#respondThu, 27 Feb 2014 22:57:01 +0000http://o.canada.com/?p=404052]]>OTTAWA – The office of the Senate ethics officer will receive almost $400,000 more over the next 12 months than it did in the last fiscal year, to ensure senators aren’t flouting conflict of interest rules.

When the main estimates, which project spending across all areas of the federal government, were tabled Thursday in Parliament, they pushed the Senate ethics officer’s budget above $1 million for the first time in its eight-year history.

Overall, the Senate ethics officer is projected to spend almost $1.17 million in the 2014-15 fiscal year, an increase of about $378,000 — or 48 per cent — from the approximately $788,000 projected in the 2013-14 main estimates.

No further details are outlined in the document about the scope of investigations or the number of senators who may be under review.

However, if previous years are any indication, the federal opposition parties are likely to try to call Senate ethics officer Lyse Ricard before a House of Commons committee to explain her budget.

The ethics officer is responsible for reviewing ethics disclosure forms from senators that outline their financial holdings and outside business interests. Those disclosure are publicly available through the office’s website.

The office is also responsible for reviewing complaints against senators who are alleged to have used their position to give themselves or someone else a financial boost.

One senator, Conservative Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu, is being investigated over allegations that he tried to get the Senate to give job perks to a woman with whom he was romantically involved. The file is still open.

Another complaint was being reviewed to see if a formal investigation was required. Ricard’s office has declined to publicly name the senator involved.

A formal complaint was filed against Sen. Irving Gerstein for his alleged role in trying to use a senior partner at auditing firm Deloitte to manipulate the outcome of Sen. Mike Duffy’s expense audit.